<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_08_2131233</id>
	<title>Google To Steal Office Web Apps' Thunder?</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1268044320000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Barence writes <i>"Google has stepped up its assault on Microsoft's productivity software with the acquisition of a start-up company that allows Office users to edit and share their documents on the Web. The search giant has <a href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/enterprise/356167/google-to-steal-office-web-apps-thunder">acquired DocVerse for an undisclosed sum</a>. Product manager Jonathan Rochelle said DocVerse software makes it easier for users and businesses to <a href="http://googleenterprise.blogspot.com/2010/03/google-docs-welcomes-docverse.html">move their existing PC documents to the cloud</a>, and that Google 'fell in love with what they were doing to make that transition easier.' Microsoft said in an emailed statement that Google's acquisition of DocVerse acknowledges that customers want to use and collaborate with Office documents. 'Furthermore, it reinforces that customers are embracing Microsoft's long-stated strategy of software plus services, which combines rich client software with cloud services.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Barence writes " Google has stepped up its assault on Microsoft 's productivity software with the acquisition of a start-up company that allows Office users to edit and share their documents on the Web .
The search giant has acquired DocVerse for an undisclosed sum .
Product manager Jonathan Rochelle said DocVerse software makes it easier for users and businesses to move their existing PC documents to the cloud , and that Google 'fell in love with what they were doing to make that transition easier .
' Microsoft said in an emailed statement that Google 's acquisition of DocVerse acknowledges that customers want to use and collaborate with Office documents .
'Furthermore , it reinforces that customers are embracing Microsoft 's long-stated strategy of software plus services , which combines rich client software with cloud services .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Barence writes "Google has stepped up its assault on Microsoft's productivity software with the acquisition of a start-up company that allows Office users to edit and share their documents on the Web.
The search giant has acquired DocVerse for an undisclosed sum.
Product manager Jonathan Rochelle said DocVerse software makes it easier for users and businesses to move their existing PC documents to the cloud, and that Google 'fell in love with what they were doing to make that transition easier.
' Microsoft said in an emailed statement that Google's acquisition of DocVerse acknowledges that customers want to use and collaborate with Office documents.
'Furthermore, it reinforces that customers are embracing Microsoft's long-stated strategy of software plus services, which combines rich client software with cloud services.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31412774</id>
	<title>Re:Exactly. Bit By Bit</title>
	<author>tehcyder</author>
	<datestamp>1268146440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I think back to most of the computing jobs I've had over the past 10-15 years. Every single one of them it was standard to get a full Microsoft office suite that I never used or anyone else in development used. All just to be able on the off chance of reading some trivial spreadsheet or Microsoft text document.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
And what's so special about the developers that they don't have to fit in with the rest of the company?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think back to most of the computing jobs I 've had over the past 10-15 years .
Every single one of them it was standard to get a full Microsoft office suite that I never used or anyone else in development used .
All just to be able on the off chance of reading some trivial spreadsheet or Microsoft text document .
And what 's so special about the developers that they do n't have to fit in with the rest of the company ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think back to most of the computing jobs I've had over the past 10-15 years.
Every single one of them it was standard to get a full Microsoft office suite that I never used or anyone else in development used.
All just to be able on the off chance of reading some trivial spreadsheet or Microsoft text document.
And what's so special about the developers that they don't have to fit in with the rest of the company?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407352</id>
	<title>1984 Anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268050500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Microsoft just wants to control the world, Google just wants to watch your every moment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft just wants to control the world , Google just wants to watch your every moment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Microsoft just wants to control the world, Google just wants to watch your every moment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406964</id>
	<title>Lock-In</title>
	<author>headkase</author>
	<datestamp>1268048760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>What isn't in Microsoft's press release and what I'm sure Google is actually doing is <i>making it easier to get your Information out of Office</i>.  Whittle away, bit by bit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is n't in Microsoft 's press release and what I 'm sure Google is actually doing is making it easier to get your Information out of Office .
Whittle away , bit by bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What isn't in Microsoft's press release and what I'm sure Google is actually doing is making it easier to get your Information out of Office.
Whittle away, bit by bit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406904</id>
	<title>Uh.huh</title>
	<author>alexborges</author>
	<datestamp>1268048460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> 'Furthermore, it reinforces that customers are embracing Microsoft's long-stated strategy of software plus services, which combines rich client software with cloud services.'"</i></p><p>Ok, that doesnt look well. Let me correct it:</p><p><i> 'Furthermore, it reinforces that customers are embracing Microsoft's <b>long-dead</b> strategy of software plus services, which combines rich client software with cloud services.'"</i></p><p>There.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'Furthermore , it reinforces that customers are embracing Microsoft 's long-stated strategy of software plus services , which combines rich client software with cloud services .
' " Ok , that doesnt look well .
Let me correct it : 'Furthermore , it reinforces that customers are embracing Microsoft 's long-dead strategy of software plus services , which combines rich client software with cloud services .
' " There .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 'Furthermore, it reinforces that customers are embracing Microsoft's long-stated strategy of software plus services, which combines rich client software with cloud services.
'"Ok, that doesnt look well.
Let me correct it: 'Furthermore, it reinforces that customers are embracing Microsoft's long-dead strategy of software plus services, which combines rich client software with cloud services.
'"There.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31410402</id>
	<title>Re:Normal people hate web apps.</title>
	<author>JackieBrown</author>
	<datestamp>1268074920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is there anyway to have two excel windows open?</p><p>I can open two (or more) excel documents they reuse the same window.  There is not tab implentaion for seprate files so it is difficult for me to switch from one excel spreadsheet to another via the mouse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there anyway to have two excel windows open ? I can open two ( or more ) excel documents they reuse the same window .
There is not tab implentaion for seprate files so it is difficult for me to switch from one excel spreadsheet to another via the mouse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there anyway to have two excel windows open?I can open two (or more) excel documents they reuse the same window.
There is not tab implentaion for seprate files so it is difficult for me to switch from one excel spreadsheet to another via the mouse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31411672</id>
	<title>Re:Normal people hate web apps.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268136180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I was working for a media company and they deployed a web app that made it easier for journos to submit stories, the only desktop app required was used by the editors. No longer did they have to log in to a VPN and run a very network intensive publishing app via satellite from remote places just to submit the story. They could submit stories written in say notepad and copied &amp; pasted into this app.</p></div><p>To me, this just reeks of a "solution looking for a problem". Why don't the journos just email their stories to the editor directly? Maybe a special purpose email box specifically for stories that the editor's app can check and download automatically? If you're concerned about security or something (really?) then just use S/MIME or PGP on the emails.</p><p>Web Apps suck for the same reason that having to use a computer at a public library to browse the Internet sucks. You have no control, software which worked fine may be "upgraded" to something which doesn't, and the resource may be rendered unavailable at arbitrary times &mdash; when using your own computer, if you break it then at least you know how and why it happened and what is being done to fix it, in this situation there is no real explanation and you don't know when it will be fixed.</p><p>I suspect you'll find that Web Apps are more of an infatuation, it is convenient to be able to access the thing from anywhere but then there'll be the case where your Internet is out and you really need to get something done. When that happens, a thick client will be a godsend. Ultimately, we already did the mainframe plus terminals thing, it sucked for general purpose computing but was useful for other cases; as such, Web Apps are not going away but <em>neither</em> are desktop apps, the two are going to coexist in a complimentary fashion for as far as I can predict into the future.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was working for a media company and they deployed a web app that made it easier for journos to submit stories , the only desktop app required was used by the editors .
No longer did they have to log in to a VPN and run a very network intensive publishing app via satellite from remote places just to submit the story .
They could submit stories written in say notepad and copied &amp; pasted into this app.To me , this just reeks of a " solution looking for a problem " .
Why do n't the journos just email their stories to the editor directly ?
Maybe a special purpose email box specifically for stories that the editor 's app can check and download automatically ?
If you 're concerned about security or something ( really ?
) then just use S/MIME or PGP on the emails.Web Apps suck for the same reason that having to use a computer at a public library to browse the Internet sucks .
You have no control , software which worked fine may be " upgraded " to something which does n't , and the resource may be rendered unavailable at arbitrary times    when using your own computer , if you break it then at least you know how and why it happened and what is being done to fix it , in this situation there is no real explanation and you do n't know when it will be fixed.I suspect you 'll find that Web Apps are more of an infatuation , it is convenient to be able to access the thing from anywhere but then there 'll be the case where your Internet is out and you really need to get something done .
When that happens , a thick client will be a godsend .
Ultimately , we already did the mainframe plus terminals thing , it sucked for general purpose computing but was useful for other cases ; as such , Web Apps are not going away but neither are desktop apps , the two are going to coexist in a complimentary fashion for as far as I can predict into the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was working for a media company and they deployed a web app that made it easier for journos to submit stories, the only desktop app required was used by the editors.
No longer did they have to log in to a VPN and run a very network intensive publishing app via satellite from remote places just to submit the story.
They could submit stories written in say notepad and copied &amp; pasted into this app.To me, this just reeks of a "solution looking for a problem".
Why don't the journos just email their stories to the editor directly?
Maybe a special purpose email box specifically for stories that the editor's app can check and download automatically?
If you're concerned about security or something (really?
) then just use S/MIME or PGP on the emails.Web Apps suck for the same reason that having to use a computer at a public library to browse the Internet sucks.
You have no control, software which worked fine may be "upgraded" to something which doesn't, and the resource may be rendered unavailable at arbitrary times — when using your own computer, if you break it then at least you know how and why it happened and what is being done to fix it, in this situation there is no real explanation and you don't know when it will be fixed.I suspect you'll find that Web Apps are more of an infatuation, it is convenient to be able to access the thing from anywhere but then there'll be the case where your Internet is out and you really need to get something done.
When that happens, a thick client will be a godsend.
Ultimately, we already did the mainframe plus terminals thing, it sucked for general purpose computing but was useful for other cases; as such, Web Apps are not going away but neither are desktop apps, the two are going to coexist in a complimentary fashion for as far as I can predict into the future.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407780</id>
	<title>Re:Cloud</title>
	<author>brad-x</author>
	<datestamp>1268052720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>The only reason this stuff is so popular now is because people won't pay $99.99 for a MS Office license anymore so instead MS/Google are writing server-side adware to try and get the $99 from advertisers over a couple of years.</p></div><p>Ah... no. That's the reason that they're doing it, not the reason that it's popular. The reason that it's popular is that it's useful and free (again, if you don't want to pay for the ad-free version).</p></div><p>That was an odd way of agreeing with him.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only reason this stuff is so popular now is because people wo n't pay $ 99.99 for a MS Office license anymore so instead MS/Google are writing server-side adware to try and get the $ 99 from advertisers over a couple of years.Ah... no. That 's the reason that they 're doing it , not the reason that it 's popular .
The reason that it 's popular is that it 's useful and free ( again , if you do n't want to pay for the ad-free version ) .That was an odd way of agreeing with him .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only reason this stuff is so popular now is because people won't pay $99.99 for a MS Office license anymore so instead MS/Google are writing server-side adware to try and get the $99 from advertisers over a couple of years.Ah... no. That's the reason that they're doing it, not the reason that it's popular.
The reason that it's popular is that it's useful and free (again, if you don't want to pay for the ad-free version).That was an odd way of agreeing with him.
:-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407180</id>
	<title>Translation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268049600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"...it reinforces that customers are embracing Microsoft's long-stated strategy of software plus services, which combines rich client software with cloud services."</i></p><p><b>"...it reinforces that customers will be pushed into our long-stated strategy of software plus services, which combines bloated software and half baked DRM to nightmarish effect."</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...it reinforces that customers are embracing Microsoft 's long-stated strategy of software plus services , which combines rich client software with cloud services .
" " ...it reinforces that customers will be pushed into our long-stated strategy of software plus services , which combines bloated software and half baked DRM to nightmarish effect .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...it reinforces that customers are embracing Microsoft's long-stated strategy of software plus services, which combines rich client software with cloud services.
""...it reinforces that customers will be pushed into our long-stated strategy of software plus services, which combines bloated software and half baked DRM to nightmarish effect.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31408726</id>
	<title>Re:Normal people hate web apps.</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1268058720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><blockquote><div><p>Most developers don't realize this, but average users absolutely hate web apps. They typically aren't anywhere near as easy to use as normal desktop applications. Developers are loving web apps.</p></div></blockquote><p>That may be true - but its funny how these things always work out - its the developers who decide where the platform is, not the user.</p></div></blockquote><p>Funny how that works - for years we've been told that good business (where customer facing or internal facing) revolves around customer service.  Now, it's fuck the customer - developers love web apps.<br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>These "Upgraded" versions make a developer's and a support staff's life easier.</p></div></blockquote><p>And, as above, we used to hire developers to make the customer's lives easier and more productive...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most developers do n't realize this , but average users absolutely hate web apps .
They typically are n't anywhere near as easy to use as normal desktop applications .
Developers are loving web apps.That may be true - but its funny how these things always work out - its the developers who decide where the platform is , not the user.Funny how that works - for years we 've been told that good business ( where customer facing or internal facing ) revolves around customer service .
Now , it 's fuck the customer - developers love web apps .
  These " Upgraded " versions make a developer 's and a support staff 's life easier.And , as above , we used to hire developers to make the customer 's lives easier and more productive.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most developers don't realize this, but average users absolutely hate web apps.
They typically aren't anywhere near as easy to use as normal desktop applications.
Developers are loving web apps.That may be true - but its funny how these things always work out - its the developers who decide where the platform is, not the user.Funny how that works - for years we've been told that good business (where customer facing or internal facing) revolves around customer service.
Now, it's fuck the customer - developers love web apps.
  These "Upgraded" versions make a developer's and a support staff's life easier.And, as above, we used to hire developers to make the customer's lives easier and more productive...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31409734</id>
	<title>Re:Corporate Love</title>
	<author>game kid</author>
	<datestamp>1268067660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>DocVerse: "Oh Google, I want your acquisition money in my business account now! Oh! Yes! <strong>Yes!</strong>" [releases shiny products and middleware all over the place]</htmltext>
<tokenext>DocVerse : " Oh Google , I want your acquisition money in my business account now !
Oh ! Yes !
Yes ! " [ releases shiny products and middleware all over the place ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DocVerse: "Oh Google, I want your acquisition money in my business account now!
Oh! Yes!
Yes!" [releases shiny products and middleware all over the place]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407238</id>
	<title>Translation of Summary:</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1268049900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>DocVerse says:</b> <i>That's right ladies, I'm dating Google now. I know there are rumors of him having other girls, but what can I say? He doesn't follow any of the rules! Besides, I hear his data centers are HUGE!</i> <br> <br>
<b>Google:</b> <i>Yeah boys, DocVerse is a cute little thing to be sure. I'll protect her as long as she puts out.</i> <br> <br>
<b>Microsoft:</b> <i>You damn kids with your free spirited sex and cloud-computing-rock-and-roll! Get off my lawn you patchouli-scented, long-haired hippies!</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>DocVerse says : That 's right ladies , I 'm dating Google now .
I know there are rumors of him having other girls , but what can I say ?
He does n't follow any of the rules !
Besides , I hear his data centers are HUGE !
Google : Yeah boys , DocVerse is a cute little thing to be sure .
I 'll protect her as long as she puts out .
Microsoft : You damn kids with your free spirited sex and cloud-computing-rock-and-roll !
Get off my lawn you patchouli-scented , long-haired hippies !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DocVerse says: That's right ladies, I'm dating Google now.
I know there are rumors of him having other girls, but what can I say?
He doesn't follow any of the rules!
Besides, I hear his data centers are HUGE!
Google: Yeah boys, DocVerse is a cute little thing to be sure.
I'll protect her as long as she puts out.
Microsoft: You damn kids with your free spirited sex and cloud-computing-rock-and-roll!
Get off my lawn you patchouli-scented, long-haired hippies!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407760</id>
	<title>Re:Cloud</title>
	<author>brad-x</author>
	<datestamp>1268052600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hear hear! That's basically the upshot yes. You're foisting your personal documents onto a public server, you're allowing a company to index it and show you ads based on the resulting content you save/create, and people do it because they know only that they dislike Microsoft and don't want to pay money for goods and services.

</p><p>It'll be interesting to see the advertising bubble burst when everyone realises those little sidebar ads don't generate nearly enough revenue in the real world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hear hear !
That 's basically the upshot yes .
You 're foisting your personal documents onto a public server , you 're allowing a company to index it and show you ads based on the resulting content you save/create , and people do it because they know only that they dislike Microsoft and do n't want to pay money for goods and services .
It 'll be interesting to see the advertising bubble burst when everyone realises those little sidebar ads do n't generate nearly enough revenue in the real world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hear hear!
That's basically the upshot yes.
You're foisting your personal documents onto a public server, you're allowing a company to index it and show you ads based on the resulting content you save/create, and people do it because they know only that they dislike Microsoft and don't want to pay money for goods and services.
It'll be interesting to see the advertising bubble burst when everyone realises those little sidebar ads don't generate nearly enough revenue in the real world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31414614</id>
	<title>Re:Cloud</title>
	<author>tehcyder</author>
	<datestamp>1268154060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You make it sound as if that comes with no advantages. There are dozens<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... here are a few.
</p><p>
Google's reliable storage which is <strong>backed up</strong> for you</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
And potentially sensitive information extracted from it and sold to the highet bidder. (Potentially.)</p><blockquote><div><p>documents and be shared or collaborated on with other users</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
That is entirely possible with non-cloud solutions, i.e. the way the majority of businesses work already, using either a secure intranet, or even just emailing documents.  How many people do you really want to have access to your company's personnel or financial records?</p><blockquote><div><p>the options for publishing to and interacting with the Web from docs is, frankly, a game-ender for locally hosted Office suites.</p></div></blockquote><p>
If you want to, it is easy enough to publish Office documents to the web, and what sort of interactivity do you really need?</p><blockquote><div><p>The ability to continue to access your documents even if your new computer is a different OS or hardware vendor with no purchased software.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Most business and non-geek individuals don't have a wide variety of hardware/operating systems in use at any one time, so this is only a marginal benefit in the real world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You make it sound as if that comes with no advantages .
There are dozens ... here are a few .
Google 's reliable storage which is backed up for you And potentially sensitive information extracted from it and sold to the highet bidder .
( Potentially. ) documents and be shared or collaborated on with other users That is entirely possible with non-cloud solutions , i.e .
the way the majority of businesses work already , using either a secure intranet , or even just emailing documents .
How many people do you really want to have access to your company 's personnel or financial records ? the options for publishing to and interacting with the Web from docs is , frankly , a game-ender for locally hosted Office suites .
If you want to , it is easy enough to publish Office documents to the web , and what sort of interactivity do you really need ? The ability to continue to access your documents even if your new computer is a different OS or hardware vendor with no purchased software .
Most business and non-geek individuals do n't have a wide variety of hardware/operating systems in use at any one time , so this is only a marginal benefit in the real world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You make it sound as if that comes with no advantages.
There are dozens ... here are a few.
Google's reliable storage which is backed up for you

And potentially sensitive information extracted from it and sold to the highet bidder.
(Potentially.)documents and be shared or collaborated on with other users

That is entirely possible with non-cloud solutions, i.e.
the way the majority of businesses work already, using either a secure intranet, or even just emailing documents.
How many people do you really want to have access to your company's personnel or financial records?the options for publishing to and interacting with the Web from docs is, frankly, a game-ender for locally hosted Office suites.
If you want to, it is easy enough to publish Office documents to the web, and what sort of interactivity do you really need?The ability to continue to access your documents even if your new computer is a different OS or hardware vendor with no purchased software.
Most business and non-geek individuals don't have a wide variety of hardware/operating systems in use at any one time, so this is only a marginal benefit in the real world.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407400</id>
	<title>Re:Lock-In</title>
	<author>CannonballHead</author>
	<datestamp>1268050740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>making it easier to get your Information out of Office</i></p> </div><p>And into Google.  Perhaps not with an actual lock-in... but when you have other services and you make them tie-in to each other<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and don't tie-in with others (or just buy them!)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>As bad as Microsoft?  Meh, no.  I don't think so.  Still bad?  Seems like it.  But I just use local copies and not Google docs (except on rare occasions when it is convenient) and don't complain about it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>making it easier to get your Information out of Office And into Google .
Perhaps not with an actual lock-in... but when you have other services and you make them tie-in to each other ... and do n't tie-in with others ( or just buy them !
) ...As bad as Microsoft ?
Meh , no .
I do n't think so .
Still bad ?
Seems like it .
But I just use local copies and not Google docs ( except on rare occasions when it is convenient ) and do n't complain about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> making it easier to get your Information out of Office And into Google.
Perhaps not with an actual lock-in... but when you have other services and you make them tie-in to each other ... and don't tie-in with others (or just buy them!
) ...As bad as Microsoft?
Meh, no.
I don't think so.
Still bad?
Seems like it.
But I just use local copies and not Google docs (except on rare occasions when it is convenient) and don't complain about it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407896</id>
	<title>Re:Normal people hate web apps.</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1268053380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... you don't have to worry about different versions, updating is a snap...</p></div><p>Only problem here, and it's worth mentioning: it also means that you can't just stick with a stable version.
</p><p>No, no, not "stable" like "doesn't crash".  "Stable" like "doesn't change".  There are users out there happily using Office 2000 and it hasn't changed because it is installed locally on their computers.  There isn't going to be anyone happily using a 3-year-old version of Google Docs, since it's seamlessly automatically upgraded behind the scenes.  Wake up one day, and things are different.
</p><p>Not that it's the end of the world.  I just think it's good to recognize that many times perfectly good features like "automatically and seamlessly updates itself to always have the newest version" have a flip side that might possibly annoy the crap out of someone.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... you do n't have to worry about different versions , updating is a snap...Only problem here , and it 's worth mentioning : it also means that you ca n't just stick with a stable version .
No , no , not " stable " like " does n't crash " .
" Stable " like " does n't change " .
There are users out there happily using Office 2000 and it has n't changed because it is installed locally on their computers .
There is n't going to be anyone happily using a 3-year-old version of Google Docs , since it 's seamlessly automatically upgraded behind the scenes .
Wake up one day , and things are different .
Not that it 's the end of the world .
I just think it 's good to recognize that many times perfectly good features like " automatically and seamlessly updates itself to always have the newest version " have a flip side that might possibly annoy the crap out of someone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... you don't have to worry about different versions, updating is a snap...Only problem here, and it's worth mentioning: it also means that you can't just stick with a stable version.
No, no, not "stable" like "doesn't crash".
"Stable" like "doesn't change".
There are users out there happily using Office 2000 and it hasn't changed because it is installed locally on their computers.
There isn't going to be anyone happily using a 3-year-old version of Google Docs, since it's seamlessly automatically upgraded behind the scenes.
Wake up one day, and things are different.
Not that it's the end of the world.
I just think it's good to recognize that many times perfectly good features like "automatically and seamlessly updates itself to always have the newest version" have a flip side that might possibly annoy the crap out of someone.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31409762</id>
	<title>Re:Uh.huh</title>
	<author>RocketRabbit</author>
	<datestamp>1268067900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, it's more like this:</p><p><i>'Furthermore, it reinforces that customers are embracing Microsoft's long-dead strategy of software plus services, which combines <b>poor</b> client software with cloud services.'</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , it 's more like this : 'Furthermore , it reinforces that customers are embracing Microsoft 's long-dead strategy of software plus services , which combines poor client software with cloud services .
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, it's more like this:'Furthermore, it reinforces that customers are embracing Microsoft's long-dead strategy of software plus services, which combines poor client software with cloud services.
'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407828</id>
	<title>Re:Cloud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268053020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You sound like a dumb shit. Go back to your hole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You sound like a dumb shit .
Go back to your hole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You sound like a dumb shit.
Go back to your hole.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407686</id>
	<title>Re:Normal people hate web apps.</title>
	<author>sortius\_nod</author>
	<datestamp>1268052120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really think you've started with a flawed premise.</p><p>I've actually found that users LOVE web apps if they do what they're intended to do AND the company is willing to move beyond the IE6 sphere of stupidity.</p><p>I was working for a media company and they deployed a web app that made it easier for journos to submit stories, the only desktop app required was used by the editors. No longer did they have to log in to a VPN and run a very network intensive publishing app via satellite from remote places just to submit the story. They could submit stories written in say notepad and copied &amp; pasted into this app. The same company uses many other web apps that users like. The only time there's a complaint is when the developers screw up and break the app. This happens with ALL apps (same publishing app mentioned before broke almost weekly and it is not a web app).</p><p>There's many other web apps (including Google Documents) that are giving users a fresh look on web apps. While I can understand people's hesitations, I remember the good old days of crummy web apps crashing your computer and chewing processor time like there's no tomorrow, I do feel that we'll see a fundamental shift from local to cloud apps in the near future by choice. My father at 67 has moved entirely to OpenOffice with Google Docs sync as he writes a lot on the road. For me, this is a sign of just how little hold Microsoft really has on the end user market.</p><p>It seems the ONLY people I see complaining these days are people who work in IT. I'm not sure if these people have just not spoken to their users in 10 years, the web apps they deploy are crap, or that they fear their own expendability in the coming years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really think you 've started with a flawed premise.I 've actually found that users LOVE web apps if they do what they 're intended to do AND the company is willing to move beyond the IE6 sphere of stupidity.I was working for a media company and they deployed a web app that made it easier for journos to submit stories , the only desktop app required was used by the editors .
No longer did they have to log in to a VPN and run a very network intensive publishing app via satellite from remote places just to submit the story .
They could submit stories written in say notepad and copied &amp; pasted into this app .
The same company uses many other web apps that users like .
The only time there 's a complaint is when the developers screw up and break the app .
This happens with ALL apps ( same publishing app mentioned before broke almost weekly and it is not a web app ) .There 's many other web apps ( including Google Documents ) that are giving users a fresh look on web apps .
While I can understand people 's hesitations , I remember the good old days of crummy web apps crashing your computer and chewing processor time like there 's no tomorrow , I do feel that we 'll see a fundamental shift from local to cloud apps in the near future by choice .
My father at 67 has moved entirely to OpenOffice with Google Docs sync as he writes a lot on the road .
For me , this is a sign of just how little hold Microsoft really has on the end user market.It seems the ONLY people I see complaining these days are people who work in IT .
I 'm not sure if these people have just not spoken to their users in 10 years , the web apps they deploy are crap , or that they fear their own expendability in the coming years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really think you've started with a flawed premise.I've actually found that users LOVE web apps if they do what they're intended to do AND the company is willing to move beyond the IE6 sphere of stupidity.I was working for a media company and they deployed a web app that made it easier for journos to submit stories, the only desktop app required was used by the editors.
No longer did they have to log in to a VPN and run a very network intensive publishing app via satellite from remote places just to submit the story.
They could submit stories written in say notepad and copied &amp; pasted into this app.
The same company uses many other web apps that users like.
The only time there's a complaint is when the developers screw up and break the app.
This happens with ALL apps (same publishing app mentioned before broke almost weekly and it is not a web app).There's many other web apps (including Google Documents) that are giving users a fresh look on web apps.
While I can understand people's hesitations, I remember the good old days of crummy web apps crashing your computer and chewing processor time like there's no tomorrow, I do feel that we'll see a fundamental shift from local to cloud apps in the near future by choice.
My father at 67 has moved entirely to OpenOffice with Google Docs sync as he writes a lot on the road.
For me, this is a sign of just how little hold Microsoft really has on the end user market.It seems the ONLY people I see complaining these days are people who work in IT.
I'm not sure if these people have just not spoken to their users in 10 years, the web apps they deploy are crap, or that they fear their own expendability in the coming years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31412612</id>
	<title>Re:Normal people hate web apps.</title>
	<author>JasterBobaMereel</author>
	<datestamp>1268145600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So instead of worrying about backups, storage, access, versioning<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... I just have to trust Google and have a web connection<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p><p>Now try and explain this to the Salesman who has no web connection and need his documents, or why you cannot retrieve the ones he accidently deleted</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So instead of worrying about backups , storage , access , versioning .... I just have to trust Google and have a web connection ....Now try and explain this to the Salesman who has no web connection and need his documents , or why you can not retrieve the ones he accidently deleted</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So instead of worrying about backups, storage, access, versioning .... I just have to trust Google and have a web connection ....Now try and explain this to the Salesman who has no web connection and need his documents, or why you cannot retrieve the ones he accidently deleted</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407592</id>
	<title>Re:Normal people hate web apps.</title>
	<author>BlackSnake112</author>
	<datestamp>1268051640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'd say office 2007 is a pretty major improvement, At least for me only because excel can open way way more cells now.</p></div><p>There is a reason why there are these called databases. Stop using excel as a database. The old 65,000 row limit was too large. When spreadsheets get that large it is time to 'upgrade' to a database. Use database views (or what ever they are called in your database of choice) to sum up the data so that the smaller spreadsheet application can handle the data.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd say office 2007 is a pretty major improvement , At least for me only because excel can open way way more cells now.There is a reason why there are these called databases .
Stop using excel as a database .
The old 65,000 row limit was too large .
When spreadsheets get that large it is time to 'upgrade ' to a database .
Use database views ( or what ever they are called in your database of choice ) to sum up the data so that the smaller spreadsheet application can handle the data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd say office 2007 is a pretty major improvement, At least for me only because excel can open way way more cells now.There is a reason why there are these called databases.
Stop using excel as a database.
The old 65,000 row limit was too large.
When spreadsheets get that large it is time to 'upgrade' to a database.
Use database views (or what ever they are called in your database of choice) to sum up the data so that the smaller spreadsheet application can handle the data.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406804</id>
	<title>market proof.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268048100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All these customers running to our competitor proofs that there is(was) a market for our product!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All these customers running to our competitor proofs that there is ( was ) a market for our product !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All these customers running to our competitor proofs that there is(was) a market for our product!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407934</id>
	<title>Re:Normal people hate web apps.</title>
	<author>CopaceticOpus</author>
	<datestamp>1268053620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sort of thinking is the same as what inspired the Newsweek article from 1995 which was discussed earlier today. That article predicted that the internet would never catch on because it was hard to use in its current form. You have to remember that the platform is going to continue to improve and be refined.</p><p>Already, the Google apps are easy to use for basic tasks. They load quickly, and while they may lack certain features and polish that can be found in the latest version of Office, they are quite usable. They're only going to get better, and browsers and PCs are only going to keep improving. There isn't much that can be added to Office for 95\% of users, so the gap will close.</p><p>The biggest advantage to web apps is file management. I don't have to consider where my files are stored, or which computers have access to them. I don't have to worry that I have two different versions if I worked on a file remotely. I don't have to worry about what happens if my hard drive crashes. Users hate worrying about those things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sort of thinking is the same as what inspired the Newsweek article from 1995 which was discussed earlier today .
That article predicted that the internet would never catch on because it was hard to use in its current form .
You have to remember that the platform is going to continue to improve and be refined.Already , the Google apps are easy to use for basic tasks .
They load quickly , and while they may lack certain features and polish that can be found in the latest version of Office , they are quite usable .
They 're only going to get better , and browsers and PCs are only going to keep improving .
There is n't much that can be added to Office for 95 \ % of users , so the gap will close.The biggest advantage to web apps is file management .
I do n't have to consider where my files are stored , or which computers have access to them .
I do n't have to worry that I have two different versions if I worked on a file remotely .
I do n't have to worry about what happens if my hard drive crashes .
Users hate worrying about those things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sort of thinking is the same as what inspired the Newsweek article from 1995 which was discussed earlier today.
That article predicted that the internet would never catch on because it was hard to use in its current form.
You have to remember that the platform is going to continue to improve and be refined.Already, the Google apps are easy to use for basic tasks.
They load quickly, and while they may lack certain features and polish that can be found in the latest version of Office, they are quite usable.
They're only going to get better, and browsers and PCs are only going to keep improving.
There isn't much that can be added to Office for 95\% of users, so the gap will close.The biggest advantage to web apps is file management.
I don't have to consider where my files are stored, or which computers have access to them.
I don't have to worry that I have two different versions if I worked on a file remotely.
I don't have to worry about what happens if my hard drive crashes.
Users hate worrying about those things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31413726</id>
	<title>Re:Normal people hate web apps.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268150520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try <a href="http://280slides.com/" title="280slides.com" rel="nofollow">280slides.com</a> [280slides.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try 280slides.com [ 280slides.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try 280slides.com [280slides.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31411758</id>
	<title>Cloud ?</title>
	<author>vikingpower</author>
	<datestamp>1268137440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Powering up the hype. Great to see how the next internet bubble grows, and grows...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Powering up the hype .
Great to see how the next internet bubble grows , and grows.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Powering up the hype.
Great to see how the next internet bubble grows, and grows...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407802</id>
	<title>Re:Normal people hate web apps.</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1268052900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The ones who hate them the most are the long-time users who once were able to use real applications</p></div><p>I don't know about that. I've long used various thick clients to read my e-mail; and then, one day, I switched to GMail, and didn't look back. I'm perfectly happy with UI and features - and, most importantly, the fact that they are the same and readily available on any computer I might come by.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The ones who hate them the most are the long-time users who once were able to use real applicationsI do n't know about that .
I 've long used various thick clients to read my e-mail ; and then , one day , I switched to GMail , and did n't look back .
I 'm perfectly happy with UI and features - and , most importantly , the fact that they are the same and readily available on any computer I might come by .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ones who hate them the most are the long-time users who once were able to use real applicationsI don't know about that.
I've long used various thick clients to read my e-mail; and then, one day, I switched to GMail, and didn't look back.
I'm perfectly happy with UI and features - and, most importantly, the fact that they are the same and readily available on any computer I might come by.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31412492</id>
	<title>What we need is Java or JavaFX based web apps</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268145000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rather than doing things in HTML, Ajax, etc. Why not use the best of both worlds and use Java based web start apps. They would work as well as off-line apps and can be kept up to date and will just work better.</p><p>I find Google apps are fine and I don't even bother with Office anymore when I can use Google or Open Office but I think there would be real value in someone creating a super sweet java web start office suite.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rather than doing things in HTML , Ajax , etc .
Why not use the best of both worlds and use Java based web start apps .
They would work as well as off-line apps and can be kept up to date and will just work better.I find Google apps are fine and I do n't even bother with Office anymore when I can use Google or Open Office but I think there would be real value in someone creating a super sweet java web start office suite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rather than doing things in HTML, Ajax, etc.
Why not use the best of both worlds and use Java based web start apps.
They would work as well as off-line apps and can be kept up to date and will just work better.I find Google apps are fine and I don't even bother with Office anymore when I can use Google or Open Office but I think there would be real value in someone creating a super sweet java web start office suite.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31409240</id>
	<title>Re:Normal people hate web apps.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268063040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Web apps, at least, have a minimum number of ways of screwing with you, as compared to the Microsoft Suite, which asks: How can I fuck with you today?</p><p>Our firm -- a large firm -- is standardized on the Microsoft Suite.  I cannot recount a SINGLE proposal effort in which a Microsoft document hasn't stopped responding, corrupted itself, or puked at the worst possible time.  Ask any "heavy" Microsoft user, they'll probably have had a similar experience.  In fact, it's taken for granted to the point that it's a normal part of the writing and publishing experience.</p><p>So by all means... limit the googaws and give me a web app over MS Office, anyday.  Or better yet, let me use Apple iWork, which costs $79 to Office's hundreds of dollars, and delivers a far better experience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Web apps , at least , have a minimum number of ways of screwing with you , as compared to the Microsoft Suite , which asks : How can I fuck with you today ? Our firm -- a large firm -- is standardized on the Microsoft Suite .
I can not recount a SINGLE proposal effort in which a Microsoft document has n't stopped responding , corrupted itself , or puked at the worst possible time .
Ask any " heavy " Microsoft user , they 'll probably have had a similar experience .
In fact , it 's taken for granted to the point that it 's a normal part of the writing and publishing experience.So by all means... limit the googaws and give me a web app over MS Office , anyday .
Or better yet , let me use Apple iWork , which costs $ 79 to Office 's hundreds of dollars , and delivers a far better experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Web apps, at least, have a minimum number of ways of screwing with you, as compared to the Microsoft Suite, which asks: How can I fuck with you today?Our firm -- a large firm -- is standardized on the Microsoft Suite.
I cannot recount a SINGLE proposal effort in which a Microsoft document hasn't stopped responding, corrupted itself, or puked at the worst possible time.
Ask any "heavy" Microsoft user, they'll probably have had a similar experience.
In fact, it's taken for granted to the point that it's a normal part of the writing and publishing experience.So by all means... limit the googaws and give me a web app over MS Office, anyday.
Or better yet, let me use Apple iWork, which costs $79 to Office's hundreds of dollars, and delivers a far better experience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407324</id>
	<title>Re:Lock-In</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268050380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe things look different inside Microsoft's cranio-rectal inversion bubble. Really, if Apple announced a tool that imported PlaysForSure tracks into iTunes as DRM-free AAC files, MS would announce that Apple was "embracing the DRM platform strategy". Most investors can't detect the BS, and it sounds a lot better...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe things look different inside Microsoft 's cranio-rectal inversion bubble .
Really , if Apple announced a tool that imported PlaysForSure tracks into iTunes as DRM-free AAC files , MS would announce that Apple was " embracing the DRM platform strategy " .
Most investors ca n't detect the BS , and it sounds a lot better.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe things look different inside Microsoft's cranio-rectal inversion bubble.
Really, if Apple announced a tool that imported PlaysForSure tracks into iTunes as DRM-free AAC files, MS would announce that Apple was "embracing the DRM platform strategy".
Most investors can't detect the BS, and it sounds a lot better...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407586</id>
	<title>Re:Normal people hate web apps.</title>
	<author>LordLucless</author>
	<datestamp>1268051580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a love/hate relationship with WebApps. Their UIs are generally slower and clunkier than that of a local program. They generally don't have as many features, and lots of operations are more difficult to do remotely.</p><p>However, for collaboration and remote access, they're simply awesome. I'd never use Google Docs to write a report or an essay. But Google Docs was awesome for setting up a wedding spreadsheet that both my fiancee and I can access and update when we book things, or get RSVPs.</p><p>In the end, it's horses for courses. I'll use both local apps and remote ones for different tasks. I'll probably never use either one exclusively.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a love/hate relationship with WebApps .
Their UIs are generally slower and clunkier than that of a local program .
They generally do n't have as many features , and lots of operations are more difficult to do remotely.However , for collaboration and remote access , they 're simply awesome .
I 'd never use Google Docs to write a report or an essay .
But Google Docs was awesome for setting up a wedding spreadsheet that both my fiancee and I can access and update when we book things , or get RSVPs.In the end , it 's horses for courses .
I 'll use both local apps and remote ones for different tasks .
I 'll probably never use either one exclusively .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a love/hate relationship with WebApps.
Their UIs are generally slower and clunkier than that of a local program.
They generally don't have as many features, and lots of operations are more difficult to do remotely.However, for collaboration and remote access, they're simply awesome.
I'd never use Google Docs to write a report or an essay.
But Google Docs was awesome for setting up a wedding spreadsheet that both my fiancee and I can access and update when we book things, or get RSVPs.In the end, it's horses for courses.
I'll use both local apps and remote ones for different tasks.
I'll probably never use either one exclusively.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406922</id>
	<title>Cloud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268048580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Great, more JavaShit-ridden bloatware that stores all your stuff on someone else's server while feeding you a steady AJAX-based stream of ads. <br> <br>

The only reason this stuff is so popular now is because people won't pay $99.99 for a MS Office license anymore so instead MS/Google are writing server-side adware to try and get the $99 from advertisers over a couple of years. Stuff your anti-spyware scanner would automatically delete for you if it was being run locally. <br> <br>

Web application == Remotely accessed spyware</htmltext>
<tokenext>Great , more JavaShit-ridden bloatware that stores all your stuff on someone else 's server while feeding you a steady AJAX-based stream of ads .
The only reason this stuff is so popular now is because people wo n't pay $ 99.99 for a MS Office license anymore so instead MS/Google are writing server-side adware to try and get the $ 99 from advertisers over a couple of years .
Stuff your anti-spyware scanner would automatically delete for you if it was being run locally .
Web application = = Remotely accessed spyware</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great, more JavaShit-ridden bloatware that stores all your stuff on someone else's server while feeding you a steady AJAX-based stream of ads.
The only reason this stuff is so popular now is because people won't pay $99.99 for a MS Office license anymore so instead MS/Google are writing server-side adware to try and get the $99 from advertisers over a couple of years.
Stuff your anti-spyware scanner would automatically delete for you if it was being run locally.
Web application == Remotely accessed spyware</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31408148</id>
	<title>Re:Cloud</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1268054820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do you do when your on an airplane and don't have internet or the DSL/Cable connection goes down for an afternoon at the office?</p><p>Until there are versions of Google Docs that you can use off line, it's a no go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you do when your on an airplane and do n't have internet or the DSL/Cable connection goes down for an afternoon at the office ? Until there are versions of Google Docs that you can use off line , it 's a no go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you do when your on an airplane and don't have internet or the DSL/Cable connection goes down for an afternoon at the office?Until there are versions of Google Docs that you can use off line, it's a no go.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407406</id>
	<title>Re:Cloud</title>
	<author>ajs</author>
	<datestamp>1268050740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Great, more JavaShit-ridden bloatware</p></div><p>So, JavaScript makes it bloatware? Last time I checked, Google Docs was faster loading by large factor than OpenOffice, MS Office or any of the other WP/Spreadsheet apps out there. How do you define "bloated," here?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>that stores all your stuff on someone else's server</p></div><p>You make it sound as if that comes with no advantages. There are dozens<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... here are a few.</p><ul> <li>Google's reliable storage which is backed up for you</li><li>documents and be shared or collaborated on with other users</li><li>the options for publishing to and interacting with the Web from docs is, frankly, a game-ender for locally hosted Office suites.</li><li>The ability to continue to access your documents even if your new computer is a different OS or hardware vendor with no purchased software.</li></ul><p>One demo of the idea of publishing data to the Web that blew me away was in <a href="http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/statistics-for-changing-world-google.html" title="blogspot.com">Google's Official Blog about their public data sources</a> [blogspot.com], where they plotted a time-series of world fertility data. There's lots of decent examples <a href="http://googledocs.blogspot.com/" title="blogspot.com">on the Google Docs official blog</a> [blogspot.com] as well.</p><p>There's also the fact that all Google applications allow you to export your data to local apps, if you wish. The Open Office format export is quite nice in Google Docs (import is OK, but at least for the spreadsheet it has a ways to go).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>while feeding you a steady AJAX-based stream of ads.</p></div><p>Only if you don't want to pay for it. Google Docs via a premium Google Apps domain does not have ads.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The only reason this stuff is so popular now is because people won't pay $99.99 for a MS Office license anymore so instead MS/Google are writing server-side adware to try and get the $99 from advertisers over a couple of years.</p></div><p>Ah... no. That's the reason that they're doing it, not the reason that it's popular. The reason that it's popular is that it's useful and free (again, if you don't want to pay for the ad-free version).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Stuff your anti-spyware scanner would automatically delete for you if it was being run locally.</p></div><p>Most anti-spyware scanners don't give a rat's petard about applications that show ads or applications that store files remotely. Typically, the goal is to ferret out software that does either without the user's knowledge or ability to prevent. In both cases, Google Docs is 100\% opt-in and <a href="http://www.dataliberation.org/" title="dataliberation.org">entirely friendly to those who wish to opt out later on.</a> [dataliberation.org] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Web application == Remotely accessed spyware</p></div><p>If your definition of spyware is any Web site that records your activity on the site or saves documents that you create for later use, then you need to include every ecommerce site on the planet. I don't think that's a definition the majority of the technical community would agree with.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Great , more JavaShit-ridden bloatwareSo , JavaScript makes it bloatware ?
Last time I checked , Google Docs was faster loading by large factor than OpenOffice , MS Office or any of the other WP/Spreadsheet apps out there .
How do you define " bloated , " here ? that stores all your stuff on someone else 's serverYou make it sound as if that comes with no advantages .
There are dozens ... here are a few .
Google 's reliable storage which is backed up for youdocuments and be shared or collaborated on with other usersthe options for publishing to and interacting with the Web from docs is , frankly , a game-ender for locally hosted Office suites.The ability to continue to access your documents even if your new computer is a different OS or hardware vendor with no purchased software.One demo of the idea of publishing data to the Web that blew me away was in Google 's Official Blog about their public data sources [ blogspot.com ] , where they plotted a time-series of world fertility data .
There 's lots of decent examples on the Google Docs official blog [ blogspot.com ] as well.There 's also the fact that all Google applications allow you to export your data to local apps , if you wish .
The Open Office format export is quite nice in Google Docs ( import is OK , but at least for the spreadsheet it has a ways to go ) .while feeding you a steady AJAX-based stream of ads.Only if you do n't want to pay for it .
Google Docs via a premium Google Apps domain does not have ads.The only reason this stuff is so popular now is because people wo n't pay $ 99.99 for a MS Office license anymore so instead MS/Google are writing server-side adware to try and get the $ 99 from advertisers over a couple of years.Ah... no. That 's the reason that they 're doing it , not the reason that it 's popular .
The reason that it 's popular is that it 's useful and free ( again , if you do n't want to pay for the ad-free version ) .Stuff your anti-spyware scanner would automatically delete for you if it was being run locally.Most anti-spyware scanners do n't give a rat 's petard about applications that show ads or applications that store files remotely .
Typically , the goal is to ferret out software that does either without the user 's knowledge or ability to prevent .
In both cases , Google Docs is 100 \ % opt-in and entirely friendly to those who wish to opt out later on .
[ dataliberation.org ] Web application = = Remotely accessed spywareIf your definition of spyware is any Web site that records your activity on the site or saves documents that you create for later use , then you need to include every ecommerce site on the planet .
I do n't think that 's a definition the majority of the technical community would agree with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great, more JavaShit-ridden bloatwareSo, JavaScript makes it bloatware?
Last time I checked, Google Docs was faster loading by large factor than OpenOffice, MS Office or any of the other WP/Spreadsheet apps out there.
How do you define "bloated," here?that stores all your stuff on someone else's serverYou make it sound as if that comes with no advantages.
There are dozens ... here are a few.
Google's reliable storage which is backed up for youdocuments and be shared or collaborated on with other usersthe options for publishing to and interacting with the Web from docs is, frankly, a game-ender for locally hosted Office suites.The ability to continue to access your documents even if your new computer is a different OS or hardware vendor with no purchased software.One demo of the idea of publishing data to the Web that blew me away was in Google's Official Blog about their public data sources [blogspot.com], where they plotted a time-series of world fertility data.
There's lots of decent examples on the Google Docs official blog [blogspot.com] as well.There's also the fact that all Google applications allow you to export your data to local apps, if you wish.
The Open Office format export is quite nice in Google Docs (import is OK, but at least for the spreadsheet it has a ways to go).while feeding you a steady AJAX-based stream of ads.Only if you don't want to pay for it.
Google Docs via a premium Google Apps domain does not have ads.The only reason this stuff is so popular now is because people won't pay $99.99 for a MS Office license anymore so instead MS/Google are writing server-side adware to try and get the $99 from advertisers over a couple of years.Ah... no. That's the reason that they're doing it, not the reason that it's popular.
The reason that it's popular is that it's useful and free (again, if you don't want to pay for the ad-free version).Stuff your anti-spyware scanner would automatically delete for you if it was being run locally.Most anti-spyware scanners don't give a rat's petard about applications that show ads or applications that store files remotely.
Typically, the goal is to ferret out software that does either without the user's knowledge or ability to prevent.
In both cases, Google Docs is 100\% opt-in and entirely friendly to those who wish to opt out later on.
[dataliberation.org] Web application == Remotely accessed spywareIf your definition of spyware is any Web site that records your activity on the site or saves documents that you create for later use, then you need to include every ecommerce site on the planet.
I don't think that's a definition the majority of the technical community would agree with.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31412592</id>
	<title>Re:Normal people hate web apps.</title>
	<author>tehcyder</author>
	<datestamp>1268145480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I don't have to consider where my files are stored, or which computers have access to them.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Yes, it makes life a lot simpler when everyone has access to everyone else's files...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't have to consider where my files are stored , or which computers have access to them .
Yes , it makes life a lot simpler when everyone has access to everyone else 's files.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't have to consider where my files are stored, or which computers have access to them.
Yes, it makes life a lot simpler when everyone has access to everyone else's files...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31408964</id>
	<title>Re:Normal people hate web apps.</title>
	<author>newdsfornerds</author>
	<datestamp>1268060580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anything that allows the app developers/vendors to avoid dealing with the quagmire that is (almost always) Windows is a boon, right? And then there's never having to port your app to another OS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anything that allows the app developers/vendors to avoid dealing with the quagmire that is ( almost always ) Windows is a boon , right ?
And then there 's never having to port your app to another OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anything that allows the app developers/vendors to avoid dealing with the quagmire that is (almost always) Windows is a boon, right?
And then there's never having to port your app to another OS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31410342</id>
	<title>Re:Normal people hate web apps.</title>
	<author>worldcitizen</author>
	<datestamp>1268074200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Users hate poorly done web apps. Personally, every time I use OWA (Outlook Web Access) I am amazed it's not a local app.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Users hate poorly done web apps .
Personally , every time I use OWA ( Outlook Web Access ) I am amazed it 's not a local app .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Users hate poorly done web apps.
Personally, every time I use OWA (Outlook Web Access) I am amazed it's not a local app.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407030</id>
	<title>Re:Normal people hate web apps.</title>
	<author>toastar</author>
	<datestamp>1268049000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Most developers don't realize this, but average users absolutely hate web apps. They typically aren't anywhere near as easy to use as normal desktop applications.</p><p>The ones who hate them the most are the long-time users who once were able to use real applications, but were forced into using "upgraded" web-based versions. They saw their productivity drop, and they're not happy about it. After all, they're the ones who then get stuck putting in longer hours to do the same job, just because of a supposed software "upgrade".</p><p>As long as Google focuses only on the web, then Microsoft has absolutely nothing to worry about. Their desktop applications will always be superior to whatever web-based apps Google or anyone else might put out.</p></div><p>You are correct that web apps aren't there yet. But It's not the platform, It the development investment. If you were to compare google spreadsheet to say lotus 1-2-3 most people would go for the web app, The problem is half the functions are missing compared to a modern spreadsheet prog.</p><p>
&nbsp; I'd say office 2007 is a pretty major improvement, At least for me only because excel can open way way more cells now.</p><p>God have you seen google's idea of powerpoint?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most developers do n't realize this , but average users absolutely hate web apps .
They typically are n't anywhere near as easy to use as normal desktop applications.The ones who hate them the most are the long-time users who once were able to use real applications , but were forced into using " upgraded " web-based versions .
They saw their productivity drop , and they 're not happy about it .
After all , they 're the ones who then get stuck putting in longer hours to do the same job , just because of a supposed software " upgrade " .As long as Google focuses only on the web , then Microsoft has absolutely nothing to worry about .
Their desktop applications will always be superior to whatever web-based apps Google or anyone else might put out.You are correct that web apps are n't there yet .
But It 's not the platform , It the development investment .
If you were to compare google spreadsheet to say lotus 1-2-3 most people would go for the web app , The problem is half the functions are missing compared to a modern spreadsheet prog .
  I 'd say office 2007 is a pretty major improvement , At least for me only because excel can open way way more cells now.God have you seen google 's idea of powerpoint ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most developers don't realize this, but average users absolutely hate web apps.
They typically aren't anywhere near as easy to use as normal desktop applications.The ones who hate them the most are the long-time users who once were able to use real applications, but were forced into using "upgraded" web-based versions.
They saw their productivity drop, and they're not happy about it.
After all, they're the ones who then get stuck putting in longer hours to do the same job, just because of a supposed software "upgrade".As long as Google focuses only on the web, then Microsoft has absolutely nothing to worry about.
Their desktop applications will always be superior to whatever web-based apps Google or anyone else might put out.You are correct that web apps aren't there yet.
But It's not the platform, It the development investment.
If you were to compare google spreadsheet to say lotus 1-2-3 most people would go for the web app, The problem is half the functions are missing compared to a modern spreadsheet prog.
  I'd say office 2007 is a pretty major improvement, At least for me only because excel can open way way more cells now.God have you seen google's idea of powerpoint?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407336</id>
	<title>And The Band Played On</title>
	<author>Broofa</author>
	<datestamp>1268050440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Microsoft said in an emailed statement that Google's acquisition of DocVerse acknowledges that customers want to use and collaborate with Office documents. "Furthermore, it reinforces that customers are embracing Microsoft's long-stated strategy of software plus services, which combines rich client software with cloud services."</p></div></blockquote><p>

Anyone else hearing the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS\_Titanic#Titanic.27s\_band" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Titanic's dance band</a> [wikipedia.org] playing in the background?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft said in an emailed statement that Google 's acquisition of DocVerse acknowledges that customers want to use and collaborate with Office documents .
" Furthermore , it reinforces that customers are embracing Microsoft 's long-stated strategy of software plus services , which combines rich client software with cloud services .
" Anyone else hearing the Titanic 's dance band [ wikipedia.org ] playing in the background ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft said in an emailed statement that Google's acquisition of DocVerse acknowledges that customers want to use and collaborate with Office documents.
"Furthermore, it reinforces that customers are embracing Microsoft's long-stated strategy of software plus services, which combines rich client software with cloud services.
"

Anyone else hearing the Titanic's dance band [wikipedia.org] playing in the background?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31408016</id>
	<title>Re:Translation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268053920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What DRM? Seriously.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What DRM ?
Seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What DRM?
Seriously.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407868</id>
	<title>Re:Normal people hate web apps.</title>
	<author>MrCrassic</author>
	<datestamp>1268053260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On your last point, keep in mind that Microsoft has all the potential to export MOST of their key (and, thus, show-stopping) Office functionality right to the web...while making it work with IE6 somehow. (I hope they don't, though; IE6 really needs to die.) That and its absolutely competitive price of NOTHING will probably sink GDocs like a lead weight when they release it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On your last point , keep in mind that Microsoft has all the potential to export MOST of their key ( and , thus , show-stopping ) Office functionality right to the web...while making it work with IE6 somehow .
( I hope they do n't , though ; IE6 really needs to die .
) That and its absolutely competitive price of NOTHING will probably sink GDocs like a lead weight when they release it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On your last point, keep in mind that Microsoft has all the potential to export MOST of their key (and, thus, show-stopping) Office functionality right to the web...while making it work with IE6 somehow.
(I hope they don't, though; IE6 really needs to die.
) That and its absolutely competitive price of NOTHING will probably sink GDocs like a lead weight when they release it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31411730</id>
	<title>Re:Normal people hate web apps.</title>
	<author>edumacator</author>
	<datestamp>1268137020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have my students write many of their essays in Google Docs where they are required to edit their team's essays. Then they transfer them to Word or an equivalent processor. I'm wondering if Google's purchase of DocVerse will make the last step unnecessary. But as you said, the collaborative elements are impressive. Especially when students are in a lab and can watch, in relative real-time what others are thinking about what they wrote.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have my students write many of their essays in Google Docs where they are required to edit their team 's essays .
Then they transfer them to Word or an equivalent processor .
I 'm wondering if Google 's purchase of DocVerse will make the last step unnecessary .
But as you said , the collaborative elements are impressive .
Especially when students are in a lab and can watch , in relative real-time what others are thinking about what they wrote .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have my students write many of their essays in Google Docs where they are required to edit their team's essays.
Then they transfer them to Word or an equivalent processor.
I'm wondering if Google's purchase of DocVerse will make the last step unnecessary.
But as you said, the collaborative elements are impressive.
Especially when students are in a lab and can watch, in relative real-time what others are thinking about what they wrote.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31411360</id>
	<title>Re:Cloud</title>
	<author>sourcerror</author>
	<datestamp>1268131740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There's also the fact that all Google applications allow you to export your data to local apps, if you wish. The Open Office format export is quite nice in Google Docs</p></div><p>Until you try to do cross references.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's also the fact that all Google applications allow you to export your data to local apps , if you wish .
The Open Office format export is quite nice in Google DocsUntil you try to do cross references .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's also the fact that all Google applications allow you to export your data to local apps, if you wish.
The Open Office format export is quite nice in Google DocsUntil you try to do cross references.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406850</id>
	<title>Normal people hate web apps.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268048280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most developers don't realize this, but average users absolutely hate web apps. They typically aren't anywhere near as easy to use as normal desktop applications.</p><p>The ones who hate them the most are the long-time users who once were able to use real applications, but were forced into using "upgraded" web-based versions. They saw their productivity drop, and they're not happy about it. After all, they're the ones who then get stuck putting in longer hours to do the same job, just because of a supposed software "upgrade".</p><p>As long as Google focuses only on the web, then Microsoft has absolutely nothing to worry about. Their desktop applications will always be superior to whatever web-based apps Google or anyone else might put out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most developers do n't realize this , but average users absolutely hate web apps .
They typically are n't anywhere near as easy to use as normal desktop applications.The ones who hate them the most are the long-time users who once were able to use real applications , but were forced into using " upgraded " web-based versions .
They saw their productivity drop , and they 're not happy about it .
After all , they 're the ones who then get stuck putting in longer hours to do the same job , just because of a supposed software " upgrade " .As long as Google focuses only on the web , then Microsoft has absolutely nothing to worry about .
Their desktop applications will always be superior to whatever web-based apps Google or anyone else might put out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most developers don't realize this, but average users absolutely hate web apps.
They typically aren't anywhere near as easy to use as normal desktop applications.The ones who hate them the most are the long-time users who once were able to use real applications, but were forced into using "upgraded" web-based versions.
They saw their productivity drop, and they're not happy about it.
After all, they're the ones who then get stuck putting in longer hours to do the same job, just because of a supposed software "upgrade".As long as Google focuses only on the web, then Microsoft has absolutely nothing to worry about.
Their desktop applications will always be superior to whatever web-based apps Google or anyone else might put out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407378</id>
	<title>Exactly. Bit By Bit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268050680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One just has to look at what happened to Microsoft over the past year, layoffs, projects and teams getting axed, to imagine what even a 10, 20 or 30 percent hit to their massive office software revenues would be like.</p><p>I think back to most of the computing jobs I've had over the past 10-15 years. Every single one of them it was standard to get a full Microsoft office suite that I never used or anyone else in development used. All just to be able on the off chance of reading some trivial spreadsheet or Microsoft text document.</p><p>If Microsoft continues to lose their ability to lock people into their office software they are going have start axing their large scale multi-billion dollar clusterfuck products like the 8 billion dollar Xbox fiasco or Ballmer's new multi-billion a year losing turd of a search engine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One just has to look at what happened to Microsoft over the past year , layoffs , projects and teams getting axed , to imagine what even a 10 , 20 or 30 percent hit to their massive office software revenues would be like.I think back to most of the computing jobs I 've had over the past 10-15 years .
Every single one of them it was standard to get a full Microsoft office suite that I never used or anyone else in development used .
All just to be able on the off chance of reading some trivial spreadsheet or Microsoft text document.If Microsoft continues to lose their ability to lock people into their office software they are going have start axing their large scale multi-billion dollar clusterfuck products like the 8 billion dollar Xbox fiasco or Ballmer 's new multi-billion a year losing turd of a search engine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One just has to look at what happened to Microsoft over the past year, layoffs, projects and teams getting axed, to imagine what even a 10, 20 or 30 percent hit to their massive office software revenues would be like.I think back to most of the computing jobs I've had over the past 10-15 years.
Every single one of them it was standard to get a full Microsoft office suite that I never used or anyone else in development used.
All just to be able on the off chance of reading some trivial spreadsheet or Microsoft text document.If Microsoft continues to lose their ability to lock people into their office software they are going have start axing their large scale multi-billion dollar clusterfuck products like the 8 billion dollar Xbox fiasco or Ballmer's new multi-billion a year losing turd of a search engine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406990</id>
	<title>Rob Malda's tranny died under mysterious circumsta</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268048880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>Rob Malda's tranny died under mysterious circumstances</b></p><p>New details about Rob Malda's past may come out in the divorce proceedings with his wife of 8 years, Kathleen. Page 6 speculates that she may fight the prenup, citing Malda&rsquo;s infidelity with various street trannies.</p><p>In 2007, Malda was caught by Dexter police with a transvestite hooker in his car. He told his wife that he &ldquo;stopped to help a person crying.&rdquo; Several other hookers sold tales of Malda&rsquo;s solicitation to the tabloids, and all of them were convinced to recant, with one exception:<br>Paul Barresi, a private detective who claims he was hired for damage control by Malda when the scandal broke, tells Page Six: &ldquo;I called [Malda attorney] Marty &lsquo;Bull Dog&rsquo; Singer and told him I could round up all the transsexuals alleging sexual dalliances with Malda.&rdquo; And they would all recant their stories.</p><p>&ldquo;In less than 10 days,&rdquo; Barresi says, &ldquo;I got them all to sign sworn, videotaped depositions, stating it wasn&rsquo;t Malda himself, but rather a look-alike, who they&rsquo;d encountered - with the exception of Suiuli.&rdquo; In 1998, she fell to her death from her Dexter roof.</p><p>Atisone Suiuli was the tranny found in Malda&rsquo;s car in 2007. After being caught by police, she had proof that she was with Malda and wouldn&rsquo;t change her story. How convenient for him that she died soon afterwards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rob Malda 's tranny died under mysterious circumstancesNew details about Rob Malda 's past may come out in the divorce proceedings with his wife of 8 years , Kathleen .
Page 6 speculates that she may fight the prenup , citing Malda    s infidelity with various street trannies.In 2007 , Malda was caught by Dexter police with a transvestite hooker in his car .
He told his wife that he    stopped to help a person crying.    Several other hookers sold tales of Malda    s solicitation to the tabloids , and all of them were convinced to recant , with one exception : Paul Barresi , a private detective who claims he was hired for damage control by Malda when the scandal broke , tells Page Six :    I called [ Malda attorney ] Marty    Bull Dog    Singer and told him I could round up all the transsexuals alleging sexual dalliances with Malda.    And they would all recant their stories.    In less than 10 days ,    Barresi says ,    I got them all to sign sworn , videotaped depositions , stating it wasn    t Malda himself , but rather a look-alike , who they    d encountered - with the exception of Suiuli.    In 1998 , she fell to her death from her Dexter roof.Atisone Suiuli was the tranny found in Malda    s car in 2007 .
After being caught by police , she had proof that she was with Malda and wouldn    t change her story .
How convenient for him that she died soon afterwards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rob Malda's tranny died under mysterious circumstancesNew details about Rob Malda's past may come out in the divorce proceedings with his wife of 8 years, Kathleen.
Page 6 speculates that she may fight the prenup, citing Malda’s infidelity with various street trannies.In 2007, Malda was caught by Dexter police with a transvestite hooker in his car.
He told his wife that he “stopped to help a person crying.” Several other hookers sold tales of Malda’s solicitation to the tabloids, and all of them were convinced to recant, with one exception:Paul Barresi, a private detective who claims he was hired for damage control by Malda when the scandal broke, tells Page Six: “I called [Malda attorney] Marty ‘Bull Dog’ Singer and told him I could round up all the transsexuals alleging sexual dalliances with Malda.” And they would all recant their stories.“In less than 10 days,” Barresi says, “I got them all to sign sworn, videotaped depositions, stating it wasn’t Malda himself, but rather a look-alike, who they’d encountered - with the exception of Suiuli.” In 1998, she fell to her death from her Dexter roof.Atisone Suiuli was the tranny found in Malda’s car in 2007.
After being caught by police, she had proof that she was with Malda and wouldn’t change her story.
How convenient for him that she died soon afterwards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31412522</id>
	<title>Re:Normal people hate web apps.</title>
	<author>JasterBobaMereel</author>
	<datestamp>1268145120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Developers don't care about deployment<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... trust me they really don't</p><p>Network Admins do and they are the ones who recommend which apps to buy, and the ones who phone up the developers when they are hard to deploy...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Developers do n't care about deployment .... trust me they really don'tNetwork Admins do and they are the ones who recommend which apps to buy , and the ones who phone up the developers when they are hard to deploy.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Developers don't care about deployment .... trust me they really don'tNetwork Admins do and they are the ones who recommend which apps to buy, and the ones who phone up the developers when they are hard to deploy...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407404</id>
	<title>Re:Normal people hate web apps.</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1268050740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Most developers don't realize this, but average users absolutely hate web apps. They typically aren't anywhere near as easy to use as normal desktop applications.</p></div><p>That may be true - but its funny how these things always work out - its the developers who decide where the platform is, not the user. Developers are loving web apps. Why? It means you don't have to worry about installing your app, you don't have to worry about different versions, updating is a snap, support is a snap, and its accessible from almost anywhere. These "Upgraded" versions make a developer's and a support staff's life easier. So thats the way the market is going to go.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>As long as Google focuses only on the web, then Microsoft has absolutely nothing to worry about.</p></div><p>Sounds like some famous last words. Like how Newspapers won't have to worry about internet blogs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most developers do n't realize this , but average users absolutely hate web apps .
They typically are n't anywhere near as easy to use as normal desktop applications.That may be true - but its funny how these things always work out - its the developers who decide where the platform is , not the user .
Developers are loving web apps .
Why ? It means you do n't have to worry about installing your app , you do n't have to worry about different versions , updating is a snap , support is a snap , and its accessible from almost anywhere .
These " Upgraded " versions make a developer 's and a support staff 's life easier .
So thats the way the market is going to go.As long as Google focuses only on the web , then Microsoft has absolutely nothing to worry about.Sounds like some famous last words .
Like how Newspapers wo n't have to worry about internet blogs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most developers don't realize this, but average users absolutely hate web apps.
They typically aren't anywhere near as easy to use as normal desktop applications.That may be true - but its funny how these things always work out - its the developers who decide where the platform is, not the user.
Developers are loving web apps.
Why? It means you don't have to worry about installing your app, you don't have to worry about different versions, updating is a snap, support is a snap, and its accessible from almost anywhere.
These "Upgraded" versions make a developer's and a support staff's life easier.
So thats the way the market is going to go.As long as Google focuses only on the web, then Microsoft has absolutely nothing to worry about.Sounds like some famous last words.
Like how Newspapers won't have to worry about internet blogs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31412390</id>
	<title>Re:Normal people hate web apps.</title>
	<author>tehcyder</author>
	<datestamp>1268144520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I do feel that we'll see a fundamental shift from local to cloud apps in the near future by choice.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Once we have free universal ultra high speed (as in, as fast as a current wired network connection) internet access, then maybe.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do feel that we 'll see a fundamental shift from local to cloud apps in the near future by choice .
Once we have free universal ultra high speed ( as in , as fast as a current wired network connection ) internet access , then maybe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do feel that we'll see a fundamental shift from local to cloud apps in the near future by choice.
Once we have free universal ultra high speed (as in, as fast as a current wired network connection) internet access, then maybe.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31410466</id>
	<title>Re:Normal people hate web apps.</title>
	<author>juancnuno</author>
	<datestamp>1268075460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Tell that to everyone playing FarmVille</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tell that to everyone playing FarmVille</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tell that to everyone playing FarmVille</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407052</id>
	<title>Corporate Love</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268049120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, young love.  <em>"Google 'fell in love with what they were doing to make that transition easier.'</em> </p><p>Nothing like falling in love to heat up the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate\_personhood\_debate" title="wikipedia.org">corporate personhood debate</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , young love .
" Google 'fell in love with what they were doing to make that transition easier .
' Nothing like falling in love to heat up the corporate personhood debate [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, young love.
"Google 'fell in love with what they were doing to make that transition easier.
' Nothing like falling in love to heat up the corporate personhood debate [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407334</id>
	<title>Re:Normal people hate web apps.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268050440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Most developers don't realize this, but average users absolutely hate web apps. They typically aren't anywhere near as easy to use as normal desktop applications.</p></div></blockquote><p>
It's the other way on. Developers hate web applications because they're generally a pain to work with and certainly to debug, but users like them because they can use them from anywhere and they're easy to use and update without installing anything. Because of that users are generally very happy to put up with many quirks and the generally slow response in web apps.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most developers do n't realize this , but average users absolutely hate web apps .
They typically are n't anywhere near as easy to use as normal desktop applications .
It 's the other way on .
Developers hate web applications because they 're generally a pain to work with and certainly to debug , but users like them because they can use them from anywhere and they 're easy to use and update without installing anything .
Because of that users are generally very happy to put up with many quirks and the generally slow response in web apps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most developers don't realize this, but average users absolutely hate web apps.
They typically aren't anywhere near as easy to use as normal desktop applications.
It's the other way on.
Developers hate web applications because they're generally a pain to work with and certainly to debug, but users like them because they can use them from anywhere and they're easy to use and update without installing anything.
Because of that users are generally very happy to put up with many quirks and the generally slow response in web apps.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407820</id>
	<title>Re:Cloud</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1268052960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So, JavaScript makes it bloatware? Last time I checked, Google Docs was faster loading by large factor than OpenOffice, MS Office or any of the other WP/Spreadsheet apps out there.</p> </div><p>We need "bloat per feature", or some similar metric; otherwise, it is a pointless comparison. I mean, Notepad is even faster than Google Docs - so what?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , JavaScript makes it bloatware ?
Last time I checked , Google Docs was faster loading by large factor than OpenOffice , MS Office or any of the other WP/Spreadsheet apps out there .
We need " bloat per feature " , or some similar metric ; otherwise , it is a pointless comparison .
I mean , Notepad is even faster than Google Docs - so what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, JavaScript makes it bloatware?
Last time I checked, Google Docs was faster loading by large factor than OpenOffice, MS Office or any of the other WP/Spreadsheet apps out there.
We need "bloat per feature", or some similar metric; otherwise, it is a pointless comparison.
I mean, Notepad is even faster than Google Docs - so what?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407406</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2131233_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2131233_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2131233_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31409762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2131233_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2131233_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31409734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2131233_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31409240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2131233_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2131233_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31412612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2131233_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2131233_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2131233_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2131233_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31410342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2131233_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31412390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2131233_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2131233_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31410466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2131233_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2131233_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31412522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2131233_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31414614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2131233_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31411360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2131233_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31411730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2131233_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31408148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2131233_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31412774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2131233_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31411672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2131233_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31408726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2131233_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2131233_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2131233_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31408964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2131233_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31408016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2131233_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31413726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2131233_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31412592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2131233_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31410402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_2131233_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_2131233.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407030
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31413726
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407592
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31410402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31410342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31410466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31409240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407586
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31411730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407934
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31412612
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31412592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407404
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31408964
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31408726
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407896
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31412522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407686
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31412390
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31411672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407334
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_2131233.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31408016
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_2131233.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31409762
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_2131233.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407378
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31412774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407352
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_2131233.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407406
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31414614
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31408148
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407820
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407780
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31411360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407760
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_2131233.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31406804
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_2131233.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31407052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_2131233.31409734
</commentlist>
</conversation>
