<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_08_231231</id>
	<title>Microsoft Giving Rival Browsers a Lift</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1268049660000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>gollum123 tips an article at the NY Times on the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/08/technology/08browser.html?hpw&amp;pagewanted=all">progress of the European Windows browser choice screen</a> that we have been <a href="//tech.slashdot.org/story/10/02/19/2135254/Details-Emerge-On-EU-Only-Browser-Choice-Screen-For-Windows">discussing recently</a>. <i>"Rivals of Microsoft's market-leading Web browser have attracted a flurry of interest since the company, fulfilling a regulatory requirement, started making it easier for European users of its Windows operating system to switch. Mozilla, whose Firefox browser is the strongest competitor to Microsoft's Internet Explorer worldwide, said that more than 50,000 people had downloaded Firefox via a 'choice screen' that has been popping up on Windows-equipped computers in Europe since the end of last month. ... Opera Software, based in Oslo, said downloads of its browser in Belgium, France, Britain, Poland, and Spain had tripled since the screen began to appear. Microsoft said it was too early to tell whether the choice screen might prompt significant numbers of users to change. The digital ballot is being delivered over the Internet with software updates, and it is expected to take until mid-May to complete the process. The browser choice will also be presented to buyers of new Windows computers across the European Union for five years."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>gollum123 tips an article at the NY Times on the progress of the European Windows browser choice screen that we have been discussing recently .
" Rivals of Microsoft 's market-leading Web browser have attracted a flurry of interest since the company , fulfilling a regulatory requirement , started making it easier for European users of its Windows operating system to switch .
Mozilla , whose Firefox browser is the strongest competitor to Microsoft 's Internet Explorer worldwide , said that more than 50,000 people had downloaded Firefox via a 'choice screen ' that has been popping up on Windows-equipped computers in Europe since the end of last month .
... Opera Software , based in Oslo , said downloads of its browser in Belgium , France , Britain , Poland , and Spain had tripled since the screen began to appear .
Microsoft said it was too early to tell whether the choice screen might prompt significant numbers of users to change .
The digital ballot is being delivered over the Internet with software updates , and it is expected to take until mid-May to complete the process .
The browser choice will also be presented to buyers of new Windows computers across the European Union for five years .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>gollum123 tips an article at the NY Times on the progress of the European Windows browser choice screen that we have been discussing recently.
"Rivals of Microsoft's market-leading Web browser have attracted a flurry of interest since the company, fulfilling a regulatory requirement, started making it easier for European users of its Windows operating system to switch.
Mozilla, whose Firefox browser is the strongest competitor to Microsoft's Internet Explorer worldwide, said that more than 50,000 people had downloaded Firefox via a 'choice screen' that has been popping up on Windows-equipped computers in Europe since the end of last month.
... Opera Software, based in Oslo, said downloads of its browser in Belgium, France, Britain, Poland, and Spain had tripled since the screen began to appear.
Microsoft said it was too early to tell whether the choice screen might prompt significant numbers of users to change.
The digital ballot is being delivered over the Internet with software updates, and it is expected to take until mid-May to complete the process.
The browser choice will also be presented to buyers of new Windows computers across the European Union for five years.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409828</id>
	<title>Re:How is this news?</title>
	<author>RealGrouchy</author>
	<datestamp>1268069040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Reaction: "What the hell is a browser? Choose? I just want to 'surf' the 'internet'...</p></div><p>"...I think I'll listen to some Opera while I wait for my TaB."</p><p>- RG&gt;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reaction : " What the hell is a browser ?
Choose ? I just want to 'surf ' the 'internet'... " ...I think I 'll listen to some Opera while I wait for my TaB .
" - RG &gt;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reaction: "What the hell is a browser?
Choose? I just want to 'surf' the 'internet'..."...I think I'll listen to some Opera while I wait for my TaB.
"- RG&gt;
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409096</id>
	<title>Re:How is this news?</title>
	<author>kiddygrinder</author>
	<datestamp>1268061720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>it actually explains what a browser is and does not actually uninstall ie, it just removes it from the shortcuts bar.  to be honest i don't see the down side, user clicks a blatantly obvious browser picker screen to choose their browser, which includes the friendly old ie "e for internet" logo, and microsoft get's one less place to abuse their monopoly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>it actually explains what a browser is and does not actually uninstall ie , it just removes it from the shortcuts bar .
to be honest i do n't see the down side , user clicks a blatantly obvious browser picker screen to choose their browser , which includes the friendly old ie " e for internet " logo , and microsoft get 's one less place to abuse their monopoly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it actually explains what a browser is and does not actually uninstall ie, it just removes it from the shortcuts bar.
to be honest i don't see the down side, user clicks a blatantly obvious browser picker screen to choose their browser, which includes the friendly old ie "e for internet" logo, and microsoft get's one less place to abuse their monopoly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31410916</id>
	<title>Re:Awareness is the best result.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268167680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Did they want to be aware of alternatives? Or is this something where we are deciding they SHOULD be aware whether they want to be or not?</p><p>Which does not sound very consumer-oriented.</p></div><p>Consumer-oriented? Christ, not everything is about your credit card. Some knowledge is required whether you want to learn it or not.</p><p>You really think it is acceptable that users don't understand what a browser is? That they can't tell the difference between an application and a protocol? These users are a danger to themselves and others, and yes they SHOULD be educated.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did they want to be aware of alternatives ?
Or is this something where we are deciding they SHOULD be aware whether they want to be or not ? Which does not sound very consumer-oriented.Consumer-oriented ?
Christ , not everything is about your credit card .
Some knowledge is required whether you want to learn it or not.You really think it is acceptable that users do n't understand what a browser is ?
That they ca n't tell the difference between an application and a protocol ?
These users are a danger to themselves and others , and yes they SHOULD be educated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did they want to be aware of alternatives?
Or is this something where we are deciding they SHOULD be aware whether they want to be or not?Which does not sound very consumer-oriented.Consumer-oriented?
Christ, not everything is about your credit card.
Some knowledge is required whether you want to learn it or not.You really think it is acceptable that users don't understand what a browser is?
That they can't tell the difference between an application and a protocol?
These users are a danger to themselves and others, and yes they SHOULD be educated.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31410600</id>
	<title>Re:Overreach.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268077080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Problem is not the what or how, but the when.</p><p>The browser-balllot decision, just like the Intel decision are many years too late. In all this time both companies had the chance to expand their market position so much, that it's almost impossible to correct it over such decisions.</p><p>Interestingly there's a lot of people who like to compare Apple to the IE-situation. None of them have yet come up with a good example (in terms of logic)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Problem is not the what or how , but the when.The browser-balllot decision , just like the Intel decision are many years too late .
In all this time both companies had the chance to expand their market position so much , that it 's almost impossible to correct it over such decisions.Interestingly there 's a lot of people who like to compare Apple to the IE-situation .
None of them have yet come up with a good example ( in terms of logic )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Problem is not the what or how, but the when.The browser-balllot decision, just like the Intel decision are many years too late.
In all this time both companies had the chance to expand their market position so much, that it's almost impossible to correct it over such decisions.Interestingly there's a lot of people who like to compare Apple to the IE-situation.
None of them have yet come up with a good example (in terms of logic)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409036</id>
	<title>Re:Overreach.</title>
	<author>randallman</author>
	<datestamp>1268061240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A little?  They've used their monopoly to dominate the browser, office software and corporate email.  They go out of their way to avoid interoperability with their protocols and file formats and use vertical integration in addition to lock users into the Microsoft world of software.  They have a history of unethical practices and continue today (OOXML, Linux patent threats).  Many of their offerings have superior alternatives, but fitting them in with Microsoft's closed ecosystem is too difficult so people just do the easy thing and buy they stuff that works with their Active Directory, Exchange and Desktops.</p><p>In the browser market, Microsoft has clearly shown abuse of their Desktop monopoly with their lack of standards compliance and proprietary extensions.  Tell me why MS can't build a standards compliant browser with their resources.  Even today, they're trying to push Siverlight to hold the keys to the web's multimedia and with MS holding patents, there will always be a cloud over compatible implementations like Mono.  And don't say they won't play that card.  They already did it with their Linux patent threats. They've been anti-competitive with I.E. They deserve this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A little ?
They 've used their monopoly to dominate the browser , office software and corporate email .
They go out of their way to avoid interoperability with their protocols and file formats and use vertical integration in addition to lock users into the Microsoft world of software .
They have a history of unethical practices and continue today ( OOXML , Linux patent threats ) .
Many of their offerings have superior alternatives , but fitting them in with Microsoft 's closed ecosystem is too difficult so people just do the easy thing and buy they stuff that works with their Active Directory , Exchange and Desktops.In the browser market , Microsoft has clearly shown abuse of their Desktop monopoly with their lack of standards compliance and proprietary extensions .
Tell me why MS ca n't build a standards compliant browser with their resources .
Even today , they 're trying to push Siverlight to hold the keys to the web 's multimedia and with MS holding patents , there will always be a cloud over compatible implementations like Mono .
And do n't say they wo n't play that card .
They already did it with their Linux patent threats .
They 've been anti-competitive with I.E .
They deserve this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A little?
They've used their monopoly to dominate the browser, office software and corporate email.
They go out of their way to avoid interoperability with their protocols and file formats and use vertical integration in addition to lock users into the Microsoft world of software.
They have a history of unethical practices and continue today (OOXML, Linux patent threats).
Many of their offerings have superior alternatives, but fitting them in with Microsoft's closed ecosystem is too difficult so people just do the easy thing and buy they stuff that works with their Active Directory, Exchange and Desktops.In the browser market, Microsoft has clearly shown abuse of their Desktop monopoly with their lack of standards compliance and proprietary extensions.
Tell me why MS can't build a standards compliant browser with their resources.
Even today, they're trying to push Siverlight to hold the keys to the web's multimedia and with MS holding patents, there will always be a cloud over compatible implementations like Mono.
And don't say they won't play that card.
They already did it with their Linux patent threats.
They've been anti-competitive with I.E.
They deserve this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407890</id>
	<title>Opera with or without ads?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268053380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if users getting Opera in this way will have to suffer the advertising?</p><p>Way way back I tried Opera but got totally sick of the ads... Have things changed at all?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if users getting Opera in this way will have to suffer the advertising ? Way way back I tried Opera but got totally sick of the ads... Have things changed at all ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if users getting Opera in this way will have to suffer the advertising?Way way back I tried Opera but got totally sick of the ads... Have things changed at all?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31411364</id>
	<title>Re:Overreach.</title>
	<author>complete loony</author>
	<datestamp>1268131860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But didn't that start the other way around? Apple first used their near monopoly in the hardware music player business to push their iTunes music store...</htmltext>
<tokenext>But did n't that start the other way around ?
Apple first used their near monopoly in the hardware music player business to push their iTunes music store.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But didn't that start the other way around?
Apple first used their near monopoly in the hardware music player business to push their iTunes music store...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31412316</id>
	<title>Re:BTW</title>
	<author>IcI</author>
	<datestamp>1268143680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is nobody talking about the other browsers off to the right?</p><p>The ones that don't get randomized unless they are in the visible area when you hit the refresh button.</p><p>If you want diversity &amp; true choice (like we generally claim), then these other browsers must be randomized in the list too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is nobody talking about the other browsers off to the right ? The ones that do n't get randomized unless they are in the visible area when you hit the refresh button.If you want diversity &amp; true choice ( like we generally claim ) , then these other browsers must be randomized in the list too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is nobody talking about the other browsers off to the right?The ones that don't get randomized unless they are in the visible area when you hit the refresh button.If you want diversity &amp; true choice (like we generally claim), then these other browsers must be randomized in the list too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31410272</id>
	<title>Re:Overreach.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268073600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're one of the most frothing zealous MS fanboys I've seen on Slashdot. Bravo!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're one of the most frothing zealous MS fanboys I 've seen on Slashdot .
Bravo !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're one of the most frothing zealous MS fanboys I've seen on Slashdot.
Bravo!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31410764</id>
	<title>Re:How is this news?</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1268165520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>All in all, I'm glad that people are being given the choice. <b>But, really, those of us who care about it, already had the means to do it;</b> it's the fact that we're fucking upset that other people don't get pulled into using them...</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>Reaction: "What the hell is a browser? Choose? I just want to 'surf' the 'internet'.</p></div><p>Not everyone has tech-savvy friends educating them on how to "surf the internet" safely. Now they have a x/5 chance of getting a secure browser, where X is between 0 and 4. Now rather than having a default homepage that goes to some crappy news site pulling in ads from adservers, they have a chance their default homepage will be google.</p><p>It's an improvement, mate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All in all , I 'm glad that people are being given the choice .
But , really , those of us who care about it , already had the means to do it ; it 's the fact that we 're fucking upset that other people do n't get pulled into using them...Reaction : " What the hell is a browser ?
Choose ? I just want to 'surf ' the 'internet'.Not everyone has tech-savvy friends educating them on how to " surf the internet " safely .
Now they have a x/5 chance of getting a secure browser , where X is between 0 and 4 .
Now rather than having a default homepage that goes to some crappy news site pulling in ads from adservers , they have a chance their default homepage will be google.It 's an improvement , mate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All in all, I'm glad that people are being given the choice.
But, really, those of us who care about it, already had the means to do it; it's the fact that we're fucking upset that other people don't get pulled into using them...Reaction: "What the hell is a browser?
Choose? I just want to 'surf' the 'internet'.Not everyone has tech-savvy friends educating them on how to "surf the internet" safely.
Now they have a x/5 chance of getting a secure browser, where X is between 0 and 4.
Now rather than having a default homepage that goes to some crappy news site pulling in ads from adservers, they have a chance their default homepage will be google.It's an improvement, mate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408710</id>
	<title>Re:Overreach.</title>
	<author>LordLucless</author>
	<datestamp>1268058540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There isn't a problem with being a monopoly. There is a problem with abusing a monopoly. Monopolies are dangerous things in a market economy. Ideally, they shouldn't exist. If you are have a monopoly, there are some legal restrictions on things you can do with it. One of the things which is illegal is using your monopoly presence to squeeze competitors out of adjacent markets. Microsoft did this with Netscape. They used their desktop OS monopoly to squeeze Netscape out of the browser monopoly. This was illegal; they are now being punished.<br>
<br>
Your car analogy is even worse than such things usually are. This isn't about "market leaders". This is about "monopolies". Windows is a monopoly. Mac OSX isn't a competitor - a Mac is a piece of hardware. If you want an OS for your commodity x86 hardware, you can't go buy OSX. Brakes are also not a good example, as they are an integral part of a car, and always have been. Back when the browser bundling occurred, browsers were "aftermarket" components of operating systems.<br>
<br>
A more apt analogy would be if Holden was the only manufacturer of cars. There exists a market for car MP3 players. Holden starts manufacturing their own MP3 players, installs them in all their cars, and bakes the cost of them into the price of the car. All the third party MP3 players then go out of business, because the only cars people can buy all come with MP3 players. Holden now has an additional monopoly in car MP3 players, not because they have a best-of-breed product, but because they leveraged their existing monopoly. It would be entirely appropriate to force Holden to make MP3 players optional extras, and restore the market.<br>
<br>
Note this doesn't apply if Holden is "the largest car manufacturer"; it applies if they are "the only car manufacturer".</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is n't a problem with being a monopoly .
There is a problem with abusing a monopoly .
Monopolies are dangerous things in a market economy .
Ideally , they should n't exist .
If you are have a monopoly , there are some legal restrictions on things you can do with it .
One of the things which is illegal is using your monopoly presence to squeeze competitors out of adjacent markets .
Microsoft did this with Netscape .
They used their desktop OS monopoly to squeeze Netscape out of the browser monopoly .
This was illegal ; they are now being punished .
Your car analogy is even worse than such things usually are .
This is n't about " market leaders " .
This is about " monopolies " .
Windows is a monopoly .
Mac OSX is n't a competitor - a Mac is a piece of hardware .
If you want an OS for your commodity x86 hardware , you ca n't go buy OSX .
Brakes are also not a good example , as they are an integral part of a car , and always have been .
Back when the browser bundling occurred , browsers were " aftermarket " components of operating systems .
A more apt analogy would be if Holden was the only manufacturer of cars .
There exists a market for car MP3 players .
Holden starts manufacturing their own MP3 players , installs them in all their cars , and bakes the cost of them into the price of the car .
All the third party MP3 players then go out of business , because the only cars people can buy all come with MP3 players .
Holden now has an additional monopoly in car MP3 players , not because they have a best-of-breed product , but because they leveraged their existing monopoly .
It would be entirely appropriate to force Holden to make MP3 players optional extras , and restore the market .
Note this does n't apply if Holden is " the largest car manufacturer " ; it applies if they are " the only car manufacturer " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There isn't a problem with being a monopoly.
There is a problem with abusing a monopoly.
Monopolies are dangerous things in a market economy.
Ideally, they shouldn't exist.
If you are have a monopoly, there are some legal restrictions on things you can do with it.
One of the things which is illegal is using your monopoly presence to squeeze competitors out of adjacent markets.
Microsoft did this with Netscape.
They used their desktop OS monopoly to squeeze Netscape out of the browser monopoly.
This was illegal; they are now being punished.
Your car analogy is even worse than such things usually are.
This isn't about "market leaders".
This is about "monopolies".
Windows is a monopoly.
Mac OSX isn't a competitor - a Mac is a piece of hardware.
If you want an OS for your commodity x86 hardware, you can't go buy OSX.
Brakes are also not a good example, as they are an integral part of a car, and always have been.
Back when the browser bundling occurred, browsers were "aftermarket" components of operating systems.
A more apt analogy would be if Holden was the only manufacturer of cars.
There exists a market for car MP3 players.
Holden starts manufacturing their own MP3 players, installs them in all their cars, and bakes the cost of them into the price of the car.
All the third party MP3 players then go out of business, because the only cars people can buy all come with MP3 players.
Holden now has an additional monopoly in car MP3 players, not because they have a best-of-breed product, but because they leveraged their existing monopoly.
It would be entirely appropriate to force Holden to make MP3 players optional extras, and restore the market.
Note this doesn't apply if Holden is "the largest car manufacturer"; it applies if they are "the only car manufacturer".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407924</id>
	<title>Re:Opera with or without ads?</title>
	<author>SCVirus</author>
	<datestamp>1268053560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Opera hasn't had ads for years. It is totally free as in beer. <br> <br>

September 20, 2005
<br>
Opera Software today permanently removed the ad banner and licensing fee from its award-winning Web browser.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Opera has n't had ads for years .
It is totally free as in beer .
September 20 , 2005 Opera Software today permanently removed the ad banner and licensing fee from its award-winning Web browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opera hasn't had ads for years.
It is totally free as in beer.
September 20, 2005

Opera Software today permanently removed the ad banner and licensing fee from its award-winning Web browser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409574</id>
	<title>Re:informed decisions?</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1268065920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Each browser provided their own copy and link URLs. So if, for example, Mozilla's is sub-standard, they only have themselves to blame.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Each browser provided their own copy and link URLs .
So if , for example , Mozilla 's is sub-standard , they only have themselves to blame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Each browser provided their own copy and link URLs.
So if, for example, Mozilla's is sub-standard, they only have themselves to blame.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31412966</id>
	<title>Re:Overreach.</title>
	<author>99BottlesOfBeerInMyF</author>
	<datestamp>1268147280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You're right Apple doesn't use OS X to promote iTunes, but that's because they use their monopoly on the mp3 market instead.</p></div><p>First, Apple has never been ruled to have such a monopoly and in the EU it was investigated and rejected. Second, even if Apple did have such a monopoly, MS has twice the market share for media playing applications, which they achieved by bundling with Windows, which is a monopoly as determined by previous court rulings. To go after Apple after doing nothing to stp MS would be some pretty crazy application of the law.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>From what I understand, the iPod requires iTunes to be of any use at all...</p></div><p>Your understanding is flawed. Songbird works fine for every iPod except the touch.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>To me that's worse than simply bundling software with your product for which there are alternatives that the user can get easily.</p></div><p>You're being self-centered. You're not the victim in either case. The companies most damaged by MS's behavior are OEMs and other Web browser makers. The effect upon you and the rest of society is just the trickle down effect. There are serious negative effects for you such as slowing the progress of Web technologies. Whether you care about that or not depends upon you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right Apple does n't use OS X to promote iTunes , but that 's because they use their monopoly on the mp3 market instead.First , Apple has never been ruled to have such a monopoly and in the EU it was investigated and rejected .
Second , even if Apple did have such a monopoly , MS has twice the market share for media playing applications , which they achieved by bundling with Windows , which is a monopoly as determined by previous court rulings .
To go after Apple after doing nothing to stp MS would be some pretty crazy application of the law.From what I understand , the iPod requires iTunes to be of any use at all...Your understanding is flawed .
Songbird works fine for every iPod except the touch.To me that 's worse than simply bundling software with your product for which there are alternatives that the user can get easily.You 're being self-centered .
You 're not the victim in either case .
The companies most damaged by MS 's behavior are OEMs and other Web browser makers .
The effect upon you and the rest of society is just the trickle down effect .
There are serious negative effects for you such as slowing the progress of Web technologies .
Whether you care about that or not depends upon you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right Apple doesn't use OS X to promote iTunes, but that's because they use their monopoly on the mp3 market instead.First, Apple has never been ruled to have such a monopoly and in the EU it was investigated and rejected.
Second, even if Apple did have such a monopoly, MS has twice the market share for media playing applications, which they achieved by bundling with Windows, which is a monopoly as determined by previous court rulings.
To go after Apple after doing nothing to stp MS would be some pretty crazy application of the law.From what I understand, the iPod requires iTunes to be of any use at all...Your understanding is flawed.
Songbird works fine for every iPod except the touch.To me that's worse than simply bundling software with your product for which there are alternatives that the user can get easily.You're being self-centered.
You're not the victim in either case.
The companies most damaged by MS's behavior are OEMs and other Web browser makers.
The effect upon you and the rest of society is just the trickle down effect.
There are serious negative effects for you such as slowing the progress of Web technologies.
Whether you care about that or not depends upon you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408622</id>
	<title>Re:Awareness is the best result.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268058000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>many people use Internet Explorer simply because they are unaware of alternatives.</p></div><p>Correction: many people use Internet Explorer simply because they <i>don't care about</i> alternatives.  Seriously, to you it might be a big deal whether you're using Firefox 3.0 or 3.5 or Chrome's latest beta... for most people out there it's just the logo you click to get through to Facebook.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>many people use Internet Explorer simply because they are unaware of alternatives.Correction : many people use Internet Explorer simply because they do n't care about alternatives .
Seriously , to you it might be a big deal whether you 're using Firefox 3.0 or 3.5 or Chrome 's latest beta... for most people out there it 's just the logo you click to get through to Facebook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>many people use Internet Explorer simply because they are unaware of alternatives.Correction: many people use Internet Explorer simply because they don't care about alternatives.
Seriously, to you it might be a big deal whether you're using Firefox 3.0 or 3.5 or Chrome's latest beta... for most people out there it's just the logo you click to get through to Facebook.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409264</id>
	<title>Re:Opera with or without ads?</title>
	<author>ewanm89</author>
	<datestamp>1268063160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Opera ditched the ads a couple of years ago now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Opera ditched the ads a couple of years ago now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opera ditched the ads a couple of years ago now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31416858</id>
	<title>Re:informed decisions?</title>
	<author>jez9999</author>
	<datestamp>1268162820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Not being from Europe, and also having no intention to use Windows 7 any time in the near future, I haven't seen this "choice screen" until I just searched for a screen shot of it</i></p><p><a href="http://www.browserchoice.eu/BrowserChoice/browserchoice\_en.htm" title="browserchoice.eu">This</a> [browserchoice.eu] appears to be it (or a facsimile).  My question is, if it's just a remote webpage, why on earth aren't they doing the shuffling server-side?  It's a very cheap operation and they're relying on client script to do it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not being from Europe , and also having no intention to use Windows 7 any time in the near future , I have n't seen this " choice screen " until I just searched for a screen shot of itThis [ browserchoice.eu ] appears to be it ( or a facsimile ) .
My question is , if it 's just a remote webpage , why on earth are n't they doing the shuffling server-side ?
It 's a very cheap operation and they 're relying on client script to do it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not being from Europe, and also having no intention to use Windows 7 any time in the near future, I haven't seen this "choice screen" until I just searched for a screen shot of itThis [browserchoice.eu] appears to be it (or a facsimile).
My question is, if it's just a remote webpage, why on earth aren't they doing the shuffling server-side?
It's a very cheap operation and they're relying on client script to do it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408140</id>
	<title>Re:Overreach.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268054760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft's been putting a "digital music store ballot" in Windows Media Player for quite some time now.  It would be hilarious to see Apple have to do that in iTunes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft 's been putting a " digital music store ballot " in Windows Media Player for quite some time now .
It would be hilarious to see Apple have to do that in iTunes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft's been putting a "digital music store ballot" in Windows Media Player for quite some time now.
It would be hilarious to see Apple have to do that in iTunes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31413402</id>
	<title>Re:BTW</title>
	<author>ricebowl</author>
	<datestamp>1268149080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And, interestingly enough, the 'makers of small web browsers' now want their browsers to be more prominently displayed: <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8551317.stm" title="bbc.co.uk">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8551317.stm</a> [bbc.co.uk]. Random clearly isn't enough.</p><p>Sigh. I <strong>do</strong> agree that all browsers should be given equal prominence/visibility, but at some point, surely, people have to accept limitations in screen real-estate?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And , interestingly enough , the 'makers of small web browsers ' now want their browsers to be more prominently displayed : http : //news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8551317.stm [ bbc.co.uk ] .
Random clearly is n't enough.Sigh .
I do agree that all browsers should be given equal prominence/visibility , but at some point , surely , people have to accept limitations in screen real-estate ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And, interestingly enough, the 'makers of small web browsers' now want their browsers to be more prominently displayed: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8551317.stm [bbc.co.uk].
Random clearly isn't enough.Sigh.
I do agree that all browsers should be given equal prominence/visibility, but at some point, surely, people have to accept limitations in screen real-estate?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409448</id>
	<title>Re:Opera with or without ads?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268064900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Opera hasn't had ads for years.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's cool.  Other browswers seem to be full of them.</p><p>Guess we can't use Opera at Ars though.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Opera has n't had ads for years.That 's cool .
Other browswers seem to be full of them.Guess we ca n't use Opera at Ars though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opera hasn't had ads for years.That's cool.
Other browswers seem to be full of them.Guess we can't use Opera at Ars though.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31413714</id>
	<title>Re:Overreach.</title>
	<author>david\_thornley</author>
	<datestamp>1268150400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I'll tell you one thing society is coming to.  It's coming to a pass where there are people totally ignorant of anti-trust law, and the historical and economic underpinnings of it, and not only post on Slashdot but get modded (2, Interesting) (at the time I write this)!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll tell you one thing society is coming to .
It 's coming to a pass where there are people totally ignorant of anti-trust law , and the historical and economic underpinnings of it , and not only post on Slashdot but get modded ( 2 , Interesting ) ( at the time I write this ) !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I'll tell you one thing society is coming to.
It's coming to a pass where there are people totally ignorant of anti-trust law, and the historical and economic underpinnings of it, and not only post on Slashdot but get modded (2, Interesting) (at the time I write this)!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409132</id>
	<title>Re:Overreach.</title>
	<author>CastrTroy</author>
	<datestamp>1268062080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In my highschool we all used WordPerfect, Quattro Pro, Corel Draw/PhotoPaint, and FileMaker Pro.  Does that mean nobody from my highschool is capable of using MS Word, Excel, Photoship, or Access?  No it doesn't.  Because in my day, they taught people how to use computers in general.  How to look for stuff in the menus, and told us that we should read the help files if we got stuck.  I guess there are quite a bit of people who can't operate a computer if something moves.  But those kind of people would probably be screwed anyway.  Look at the differences from Windows XP to Windows Vista/7.  Look at all the changes in Office 2007. These people get lost every upgrade anyway.  Switching to a whole new OS with a whole new suite of applications wouldn't be any more difficult on them.  They forget things from day to day, even within the same application.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In my highschool we all used WordPerfect , Quattro Pro , Corel Draw/PhotoPaint , and FileMaker Pro .
Does that mean nobody from my highschool is capable of using MS Word , Excel , Photoship , or Access ?
No it does n't .
Because in my day , they taught people how to use computers in general .
How to look for stuff in the menus , and told us that we should read the help files if we got stuck .
I guess there are quite a bit of people who ca n't operate a computer if something moves .
But those kind of people would probably be screwed anyway .
Look at the differences from Windows XP to Windows Vista/7 .
Look at all the changes in Office 2007 .
These people get lost every upgrade anyway .
Switching to a whole new OS with a whole new suite of applications would n't be any more difficult on them .
They forget things from day to day , even within the same application .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my highschool we all used WordPerfect, Quattro Pro, Corel Draw/PhotoPaint, and FileMaker Pro.
Does that mean nobody from my highschool is capable of using MS Word, Excel, Photoship, or Access?
No it doesn't.
Because in my day, they taught people how to use computers in general.
How to look for stuff in the menus, and told us that we should read the help files if we got stuck.
I guess there are quite a bit of people who can't operate a computer if something moves.
But those kind of people would probably be screwed anyway.
Look at the differences from Windows XP to Windows Vista/7.
Look at all the changes in Office 2007.
These people get lost every upgrade anyway.
Switching to a whole new OS with a whole new suite of applications wouldn't be any more difficult on them.
They forget things from day to day, even within the same application.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408874</id>
	<title>Re:Overreach.</title>
	<author>onenil</author>
	<datestamp>1268059860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had this exact conversation just one week ago, with a friend who was playing devil's advocate - the answer to your questions (specifically on iTunes) is that iTunes performs specific functionality.

</p><p>What Microsoft did with their web browser is effectively force out the competition with anti-competitive behaviour.  They took marketshare from Netscape by imposing Internet Explorer on users of their OS.  </p><p>Monopolies are allowed in a capatilist society - they are required, however, to not ABUSE their monopoly status.  Microsoft did this, as an effective monopoly on the OS market, they abused their position in that market by forcing everyone via various mechanisms to use their web browser (the broswer market is not the same as the OS market).</p><p>Apple have what could be called a monopoly on media players with iPods and iPhones, but they do not abuse this monopoly by forcing you to use something else in a different market.  iTunes facilitates core functionality for the market in which they operate / have a monopoly in.</p><p>To apply it to your car analogy: Microsoft put a standard stereo system into their car (which in itself, is OK), but they also didn't allow you to remove their standard stereo unit in favour of another one.  Furthermore, even if you as the consumer installed an additional third party unit - and installed it in front of the standard unit, every now and then you would be forced to use the standard unit anyway, because that's just how they wired it up behind the scenes.</p><p>The fact that they're a monopoly is not the problem in the eyes of the law, it's the fact that they abused their monpoly in one market to dominate another.  The EU is now attempting to remedy this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had this exact conversation just one week ago , with a friend who was playing devil 's advocate - the answer to your questions ( specifically on iTunes ) is that iTunes performs specific functionality .
What Microsoft did with their web browser is effectively force out the competition with anti-competitive behaviour .
They took marketshare from Netscape by imposing Internet Explorer on users of their OS .
Monopolies are allowed in a capatilist society - they are required , however , to not ABUSE their monopoly status .
Microsoft did this , as an effective monopoly on the OS market , they abused their position in that market by forcing everyone via various mechanisms to use their web browser ( the broswer market is not the same as the OS market ) .Apple have what could be called a monopoly on media players with iPods and iPhones , but they do not abuse this monopoly by forcing you to use something else in a different market .
iTunes facilitates core functionality for the market in which they operate / have a monopoly in.To apply it to your car analogy : Microsoft put a standard stereo system into their car ( which in itself , is OK ) , but they also did n't allow you to remove their standard stereo unit in favour of another one .
Furthermore , even if you as the consumer installed an additional third party unit - and installed it in front of the standard unit , every now and then you would be forced to use the standard unit anyway , because that 's just how they wired it up behind the scenes.The fact that they 're a monopoly is not the problem in the eyes of the law , it 's the fact that they abused their monpoly in one market to dominate another .
The EU is now attempting to remedy this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had this exact conversation just one week ago, with a friend who was playing devil's advocate - the answer to your questions (specifically on iTunes) is that iTunes performs specific functionality.
What Microsoft did with their web browser is effectively force out the competition with anti-competitive behaviour.
They took marketshare from Netscape by imposing Internet Explorer on users of their OS.
Monopolies are allowed in a capatilist society - they are required, however, to not ABUSE their monopoly status.
Microsoft did this, as an effective monopoly on the OS market, they abused their position in that market by forcing everyone via various mechanisms to use their web browser (the broswer market is not the same as the OS market).Apple have what could be called a monopoly on media players with iPods and iPhones, but they do not abuse this monopoly by forcing you to use something else in a different market.
iTunes facilitates core functionality for the market in which they operate / have a monopoly in.To apply it to your car analogy: Microsoft put a standard stereo system into their car (which in itself, is OK), but they also didn't allow you to remove their standard stereo unit in favour of another one.
Furthermore, even if you as the consumer installed an additional third party unit - and installed it in front of the standard unit, every now and then you would be forced to use the standard unit anyway, because that's just how they wired it up behind the scenes.The fact that they're a monopoly is not the problem in the eyes of the law, it's the fact that they abused their monpoly in one market to dominate another.
The EU is now attempting to remedy this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408396</id>
	<title>Some things, you need to 'force'.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268056380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the food health standards are forced too. despite most of the populace knowing no shit about them. but, it is necessary.</p><p>same thing here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the food health standards are forced too .
despite most of the populace knowing no shit about them .
but , it is necessary.same thing here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the food health standards are forced too.
despite most of the populace knowing no shit about them.
but, it is necessary.same thing here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407968</id>
	<title>informed decisions?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268053740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not being from Europe, and also having no intention to use Windows 7 any time in the near future, I haven't seen this "choice screen" until I just searched for a screen shot of it.  There appear to be little one-line descriptions, but nothing really substantive from which to base a choice upon if you didn't already know the differences between the browsers to some degree anyway (in which case, you'd have probably downloaded whichever one you want to use separately regardless of this court-mandated action).  So, to my question: is there any way to measure how many of these downloads were due to users making an informed choice rather than just "clicking something" like they do with the "next" button on most graphical installers?  And what happens if you just click "select later?"  Does it still install IE and default to that?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not being from Europe , and also having no intention to use Windows 7 any time in the near future , I have n't seen this " choice screen " until I just searched for a screen shot of it .
There appear to be little one-line descriptions , but nothing really substantive from which to base a choice upon if you did n't already know the differences between the browsers to some degree anyway ( in which case , you 'd have probably downloaded whichever one you want to use separately regardless of this court-mandated action ) .
So , to my question : is there any way to measure how many of these downloads were due to users making an informed choice rather than just " clicking something " like they do with the " next " button on most graphical installers ?
And what happens if you just click " select later ?
" Does it still install IE and default to that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not being from Europe, and also having no intention to use Windows 7 any time in the near future, I haven't seen this "choice screen" until I just searched for a screen shot of it.
There appear to be little one-line descriptions, but nothing really substantive from which to base a choice upon if you didn't already know the differences between the browsers to some degree anyway (in which case, you'd have probably downloaded whichever one you want to use separately regardless of this court-mandated action).
So, to my question: is there any way to measure how many of these downloads were due to users making an informed choice rather than just "clicking something" like they do with the "next" button on most graphical installers?
And what happens if you just click "select later?
"  Does it still install IE and default to that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408028</id>
	<title>Overreach.</title>
	<author>cosm</author>
	<datestamp>1268053980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am aware Microsoft has been a little overreaching with their software practices in the past, but damn if it isn't contributing to the combined lack of intelligence of the computer illiterate populace when organizations like the EU force things like this on Microsoft.
<br> <br>
EU: "Hey Microsoft, people are too ignorant to do research and realize there exist alternatives to IE"<br>
M$: "So what."<br>
EU: "Give them the option to use third party software options other than the installed feature built into your OS, or else pay up!"<br>
M$: "Ok, we'll buckle, we don't need any more bad press waxing possible monopolist practices."<br> <br>

What if I started a class action suit against Apple because Itunes is installed by default, and that is a "monopoly" on digital music storefronts? Would Apple have to install a Media Player Choice(TM) screen, allowing customers to choose Windows Media Player for OSX, RealPlayer, or WinAmp because they are too ignorant to do the research themselves?

Yes Microsoft is huge. Yes they are the main provider of consumer level OS's to the big-box retailers. So let them package and run by default the software of their choosing. People don't have to buy M$.

This would be like forcing a leading car manufacturer to offer brakes from 3rd party companies, because the buyers are complacent enough to accept their shitty factory brakes, but litigation hungry enough to file complaints about them.
<br> <br>
What the fuck is society coming to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am aware Microsoft has been a little overreaching with their software practices in the past , but damn if it is n't contributing to the combined lack of intelligence of the computer illiterate populace when organizations like the EU force things like this on Microsoft .
EU : " Hey Microsoft , people are too ignorant to do research and realize there exist alternatives to IE " M $ : " So what .
" EU : " Give them the option to use third party software options other than the installed feature built into your OS , or else pay up !
" M $ : " Ok , we 'll buckle , we do n't need any more bad press waxing possible monopolist practices .
" What if I started a class action suit against Apple because Itunes is installed by default , and that is a " monopoly " on digital music storefronts ?
Would Apple have to install a Media Player Choice ( TM ) screen , allowing customers to choose Windows Media Player for OSX , RealPlayer , or WinAmp because they are too ignorant to do the research themselves ?
Yes Microsoft is huge .
Yes they are the main provider of consumer level OS 's to the big-box retailers .
So let them package and run by default the software of their choosing .
People do n't have to buy M $ .
This would be like forcing a leading car manufacturer to offer brakes from 3rd party companies , because the buyers are complacent enough to accept their shitty factory brakes , but litigation hungry enough to file complaints about them .
What the fuck is society coming to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am aware Microsoft has been a little overreaching with their software practices in the past, but damn if it isn't contributing to the combined lack of intelligence of the computer illiterate populace when organizations like the EU force things like this on Microsoft.
EU: "Hey Microsoft, people are too ignorant to do research and realize there exist alternatives to IE"
M$: "So what.
"
EU: "Give them the option to use third party software options other than the installed feature built into your OS, or else pay up!
"
M$: "Ok, we'll buckle, we don't need any more bad press waxing possible monopolist practices.
" 

What if I started a class action suit against Apple because Itunes is installed by default, and that is a "monopoly" on digital music storefronts?
Would Apple have to install a Media Player Choice(TM) screen, allowing customers to choose Windows Media Player for OSX, RealPlayer, or WinAmp because they are too ignorant to do the research themselves?
Yes Microsoft is huge.
Yes they are the main provider of consumer level OS's to the big-box retailers.
So let them package and run by default the software of their choosing.
People don't have to buy M$.
This would be like forcing a leading car manufacturer to offer brakes from 3rd party companies, because the buyers are complacent enough to accept their shitty factory brakes, but litigation hungry enough to file complaints about them.
What the fuck is society coming to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408302</id>
	<title>Re:Overreach.</title>
	<author>CannonballHead</author>
	<datestamp>1268055840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dude, get your grammar right, it'd have to be iChoose not iChoice...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude , get your grammar right , it 'd have to be iChoose not iChoice.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude, get your grammar right, it'd have to be iChoose not iChoice...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31419412</id>
	<title>Re:Awareness is the best result.</title>
	<author>hkmwbz</author>
	<datestamp>1268130420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Did they want to be aware of alternatives? Or is this something where we are deciding they SHOULD be aware whether they want to be or not?</p></div></blockquote><p>
Making people aware, thus giving them actual choice, benefits everyone.</p><blockquote><div><p>Why didn't the EU just force Microsoft to pass a certain set of standards with their browser or give users the choice?</p></div></blockquote><p>
That's much, much harder to enforce.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did they want to be aware of alternatives ?
Or is this something where we are deciding they SHOULD be aware whether they want to be or not ?
Making people aware , thus giving them actual choice , benefits everyone.Why did n't the EU just force Microsoft to pass a certain set of standards with their browser or give users the choice ?
That 's much , much harder to enforce .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did they want to be aware of alternatives?
Or is this something where we are deciding they SHOULD be aware whether they want to be or not?
Making people aware, thus giving them actual choice, benefits everyone.Why didn't the EU just force Microsoft to pass a certain set of standards with their browser or give users the choice?
That's much, much harder to enforce.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408522</id>
	<title>Re:Opera download numbers</title>
	<author>aylons</author>
	<datestamp>1268057280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pay attention: they said that the download rate increased 3x <b>compared to other main releases</b>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pay attention : they said that the download rate increased 3x compared to other main releases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pay attention: they said that the download rate increased 3x compared to other main releases.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408490</id>
	<title>Re:Overreach.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268056980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"People don't have to buy M$"<br>
<br>
Yes they do. Oh, certainly there are individuals who can choose not to. On slashdot they're probably the majority. But the general population? If they want a computer, they go to a computer store, where they're offered a choice between Vista and Windows 7, if they're lucky. They might realize that a mac is an alternative, but they'll quickly find out that they have hundreds of dollars of software that won't run on it. They might realize that Linux is an alternative, but finding a place that sells a computer without Windows (or OSX) on it is very difficult for the non-technically-inclined, especially once they realize it'll cost at least as much as the version with Windows. They teach MS office in public schools, and then there are all the businesses that are locked into windows by custom applications that won't run without Windows.<br>
<br>
Apple has nowhere near the monopoly that MS does, and they haven't tried to leverage it to nearly the same extent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" People do n't have to buy M $ " Yes they do .
Oh , certainly there are individuals who can choose not to .
On slashdot they 're probably the majority .
But the general population ?
If they want a computer , they go to a computer store , where they 're offered a choice between Vista and Windows 7 , if they 're lucky .
They might realize that a mac is an alternative , but they 'll quickly find out that they have hundreds of dollars of software that wo n't run on it .
They might realize that Linux is an alternative , but finding a place that sells a computer without Windows ( or OSX ) on it is very difficult for the non-technically-inclined , especially once they realize it 'll cost at least as much as the version with Windows .
They teach MS office in public schools , and then there are all the businesses that are locked into windows by custom applications that wo n't run without Windows .
Apple has nowhere near the monopoly that MS does , and they have n't tried to leverage it to nearly the same extent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"People don't have to buy M$"

Yes they do.
Oh, certainly there are individuals who can choose not to.
On slashdot they're probably the majority.
But the general population?
If they want a computer, they go to a computer store, where they're offered a choice between Vista and Windows 7, if they're lucky.
They might realize that a mac is an alternative, but they'll quickly find out that they have hundreds of dollars of software that won't run on it.
They might realize that Linux is an alternative, but finding a place that sells a computer without Windows (or OSX) on it is very difficult for the non-technically-inclined, especially once they realize it'll cost at least as much as the version with Windows.
They teach MS office in public schools, and then there are all the businesses that are locked into windows by custom applications that won't run without Windows.
Apple has nowhere near the monopoly that MS does, and they haven't tried to leverage it to nearly the same extent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408792</id>
	<title>Re:Overreach.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268059200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What if I started a class action suit against Apple because Itunes is installed by default, and that is a "monopoly" on digital music storefronts?</p></div><p>You have your cart and horse backwards. First, iTunes the application is not a monopoly of any sort. OS X is not a monopoly of any sort. That leaves iTunes the service, which as a lot of market share in the US. That means Apple can't bundle OS X with that service, but they don't they bundle the application with the OS and tie the service to the application. </p><p>If Apple required OS X to use iTunes, you'd have a case. If Apple forced people to buy a copy of OS X to buy a song on iTunes, you'd have a case. In fact though, Apple is moving iTunes to a Web interface to remove the tie with the application as they approach monopoly levels of market share... Which is probably the best you could hope for from any lawsuit regarding it. Apple can't leverage OS X's monopoly influence to promote iTunes because OS has no monopoly influence. Apple isn't leveraging iTunes service monopoly to promote anything in particular.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>What the fuck is society coming to.</p></div><p>It is now and always has been a clamoring crowd of ignorance. People who insist on expressing their uneducated opinions without bothering to understand the topic even superficially first.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if I started a class action suit against Apple because Itunes is installed by default , and that is a " monopoly " on digital music storefronts ? You have your cart and horse backwards .
First , iTunes the application is not a monopoly of any sort .
OS X is not a monopoly of any sort .
That leaves iTunes the service , which as a lot of market share in the US .
That means Apple ca n't bundle OS X with that service , but they do n't they bundle the application with the OS and tie the service to the application .
If Apple required OS X to use iTunes , you 'd have a case .
If Apple forced people to buy a copy of OS X to buy a song on iTunes , you 'd have a case .
In fact though , Apple is moving iTunes to a Web interface to remove the tie with the application as they approach monopoly levels of market share... Which is probably the best you could hope for from any lawsuit regarding it .
Apple ca n't leverage OS X 's monopoly influence to promote iTunes because OS has no monopoly influence .
Apple is n't leveraging iTunes service monopoly to promote anything in particular.What the fuck is society coming to.It is now and always has been a clamoring crowd of ignorance .
People who insist on expressing their uneducated opinions without bothering to understand the topic even superficially first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if I started a class action suit against Apple because Itunes is installed by default, and that is a "monopoly" on digital music storefronts?You have your cart and horse backwards.
First, iTunes the application is not a monopoly of any sort.
OS X is not a monopoly of any sort.
That leaves iTunes the service, which as a lot of market share in the US.
That means Apple can't bundle OS X with that service, but they don't they bundle the application with the OS and tie the service to the application.
If Apple required OS X to use iTunes, you'd have a case.
If Apple forced people to buy a copy of OS X to buy a song on iTunes, you'd have a case.
In fact though, Apple is moving iTunes to a Web interface to remove the tie with the application as they approach monopoly levels of market share... Which is probably the best you could hope for from any lawsuit regarding it.
Apple can't leverage OS X's monopoly influence to promote iTunes because OS has no monopoly influence.
Apple isn't leveraging iTunes service monopoly to promote anything in particular.What the fuck is society coming to.It is now and always has been a clamoring crowd of ignorance.
People who insist on expressing their uneducated opinions without bothering to understand the topic even superficially first.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409794</id>
	<title>Re:Overreach.</title>
	<author>Frinet</author>
	<datestamp>1268068560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're right Apple doesn't use OS X to promote iTunes, but that's because they use their monopoly on the mp3 market instead.  From what I understand, the iPod requires iTunes to be of any use at all, it doesn't allow music from other sources unless you put it through iTunes first.  To me that's worse than simply bundling software with your product for which there are alternatives that the user can get easily.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right Apple does n't use OS X to promote iTunes , but that 's because they use their monopoly on the mp3 market instead .
From what I understand , the iPod requires iTunes to be of any use at all , it does n't allow music from other sources unless you put it through iTunes first .
To me that 's worse than simply bundling software with your product for which there are alternatives that the user can get easily .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right Apple doesn't use OS X to promote iTunes, but that's because they use their monopoly on the mp3 market instead.
From what I understand, the iPod requires iTunes to be of any use at all, it doesn't allow music from other sources unless you put it through iTunes first.
To me that's worse than simply bundling software with your product for which there are alternatives that the user can get easily.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408348</id>
	<title>Re:Awareness is the best result.</title>
	<author>CannonballHead</author>
	<datestamp>1268056140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>many people use Internet Explorer simply because they are unaware of alternatives.</p></div><p>Did they <i>want</i> to be aware of alternatives?  Or is this something where we are deciding they SHOULD be aware whether they want to be or not?</p><p>Which does not sound very consumer-oriented.</p><p>Why didn't the EU just force Microsoft to pass a certain set of standards with their browser or give users the choice?  At least then they'd allow Microsoft to prevent the confusion by producing a quality product.</p><p>In my experience, the general user would rather not have to deal with the browser thing.  Most people that aren't computer literate enough to download one they like (Internet Explorer, Opera, Chrome, Firefox, etc) or be able to talk intelligently about said choices usually just call it "the browser" or "the firefox" or "that icon" or "the Internet."  They don't <i>care</i> about WHAT it is.  They aren't interested in using a browser.  They are interested in accessing the internet, usually very specific pages on the internet.</p><p>It's only the geek population that cares which browser they use.  Unless they have security issues, of course... in which case I still say my choice to MS is better: make a secure browser or give a choice.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>many people use Internet Explorer simply because they are unaware of alternatives.Did they want to be aware of alternatives ?
Or is this something where we are deciding they SHOULD be aware whether they want to be or not ? Which does not sound very consumer-oriented.Why did n't the EU just force Microsoft to pass a certain set of standards with their browser or give users the choice ?
At least then they 'd allow Microsoft to prevent the confusion by producing a quality product.In my experience , the general user would rather not have to deal with the browser thing .
Most people that are n't computer literate enough to download one they like ( Internet Explorer , Opera , Chrome , Firefox , etc ) or be able to talk intelligently about said choices usually just call it " the browser " or " the firefox " or " that icon " or " the Internet .
" They do n't care about WHAT it is .
They are n't interested in using a browser .
They are interested in accessing the internet , usually very specific pages on the internet.It 's only the geek population that cares which browser they use .
Unless they have security issues , of course... in which case I still say my choice to MS is better : make a secure browser or give a choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>many people use Internet Explorer simply because they are unaware of alternatives.Did they want to be aware of alternatives?
Or is this something where we are deciding they SHOULD be aware whether they want to be or not?Which does not sound very consumer-oriented.Why didn't the EU just force Microsoft to pass a certain set of standards with their browser or give users the choice?
At least then they'd allow Microsoft to prevent the confusion by producing a quality product.In my experience, the general user would rather not have to deal with the browser thing.
Most people that aren't computer literate enough to download one they like (Internet Explorer, Opera, Chrome, Firefox, etc) or be able to talk intelligently about said choices usually just call it "the browser" or "the firefox" or "that icon" or "the Internet.
"  They don't care about WHAT it is.
They aren't interested in using a browser.
They are interested in accessing the internet, usually very specific pages on the internet.It's only the geek population that cares which browser they use.
Unless they have security issues, of course... in which case I still say my choice to MS is better: make a secure browser or give a choice.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408954</id>
	<title>Re:Overreach.</title>
	<author>devent</author>
	<datestamp>1268060520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's really BS. The same will happen to Apple, if they have 90\% of the market <i>and</i> forcing everyone to use Safari. There is nothing wrong with have a monopoly, but if you are abusing it like MS did and do than this browser choice windows is the <i>least</i> thing the government should MS force to do.</p><p>What the government really should do is to split MS apart, make the whole OEM deals transparent to the customers and force MS to use open standards (or force MS to open up theirs).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's really BS .
The same will happen to Apple , if they have 90 \ % of the market and forcing everyone to use Safari .
There is nothing wrong with have a monopoly , but if you are abusing it like MS did and do than this browser choice windows is the least thing the government should MS force to do.What the government really should do is to split MS apart , make the whole OEM deals transparent to the customers and force MS to use open standards ( or force MS to open up theirs ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's really BS.
The same will happen to Apple, if they have 90\% of the market and forcing everyone to use Safari.
There is nothing wrong with have a monopoly, but if you are abusing it like MS did and do than this browser choice windows is the least thing the government should MS force to do.What the government really should do is to split MS apart, make the whole OEM deals transparent to the customers and force MS to use open standards (or force MS to open up theirs).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409170</id>
	<title>Re:Overreach.</title>
	<author>Exception Duck</author>
	<datestamp>1268062320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.tuaw.com/media/2009/01/marketshare-2398402384.png" title="blogcdn.com">http://www.blogcdn.com/www.tuaw.com/media/2009/01/marketshare-2398402384.png</a> [blogcdn.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.blogcdn.com/www.tuaw.com/media/2009/01/marketshare-2398402384.png [ blogcdn.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.blogcdn.com/www.tuaw.com/media/2009/01/marketshare-2398402384.png [blogcdn.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31411350</id>
	<title>Re:Overreach.</title>
	<author>PinkyDead</author>
	<datestamp>1268131560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forget that this settlement was agreed with the EU by Microsoft.</p><p>The original position of the EU was probably that Microsoft was abusing their monopoly position and they should be denied the right to ship a browser with Windows at all - which would put Windows at a serious disadvantage.</p><p>Remember that a similar case in the US had the DOJ at one point looking for the break up of Microsoft.</p><p>This browser "solution", while farcical to you is in fact the best compromise that they could come up with, and given the alternatives I don't think your point of view would be supported even by Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forget that this settlement was agreed with the EU by Microsoft.The original position of the EU was probably that Microsoft was abusing their monopoly position and they should be denied the right to ship a browser with Windows at all - which would put Windows at a serious disadvantage.Remember that a similar case in the US had the DOJ at one point looking for the break up of Microsoft.This browser " solution " , while farcical to you is in fact the best compromise that they could come up with , and given the alternatives I do n't think your point of view would be supported even by Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forget that this settlement was agreed with the EU by Microsoft.The original position of the EU was probably that Microsoft was abusing their monopoly position and they should be denied the right to ship a browser with Windows at all - which would put Windows at a serious disadvantage.Remember that a similar case in the US had the DOJ at one point looking for the break up of Microsoft.This browser "solution", while farcical to you is in fact the best compromise that they could come up with, and given the alternatives I don't think your point of view would be supported even by Microsoft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408002</id>
	<title>Opera download numbers</title>
	<author>tronicum</author>
	<datestamp>1268053860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Opera also released its version 10.5. Their increase in downloads might not be only the result off being linked by the <a href="http://www.browserchoice.eu/" title="browserchoice.eu">Broswerchoice</a> [browserchoice.eu] Site, but people upgrading their browsers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Opera also released its version 10.5 .
Their increase in downloads might not be only the result off being linked by the Broswerchoice [ browserchoice.eu ] Site , but people upgrading their browsers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opera also released its version 10.5.
Their increase in downloads might not be only the result off being linked by the Broswerchoice [browserchoice.eu] Site, but people upgrading their browsers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409374</id>
	<title>Re:Overreach.</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1268064300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Except that Windows (and IE) are not a monopoly.  Are they the largest player?  Yes, but there are alternatives (for those who really care, there's Linux), for everyone else there's Apple.</p>  </div><p>For what software?</p><p>Remember, there now exist lots of essential line-of-business applications which simply do not have a non-Windows port.</p><p>'Run OSX' is not much of an answer if your factory runs CustomWidgetMaker0.3 written in Delphi, QuickBasic, DOS batch scripting and Excel macros.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that Windows ( and IE ) are not a monopoly .
Are they the largest player ?
Yes , but there are alternatives ( for those who really care , there 's Linux ) , for everyone else there 's Apple .
For what software ? Remember , there now exist lots of essential line-of-business applications which simply do not have a non-Windows port .
'Run OSX ' is not much of an answer if your factory runs CustomWidgetMaker0.3 written in Delphi , QuickBasic , DOS batch scripting and Excel macros .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that Windows (and IE) are not a monopoly.
Are they the largest player?
Yes, but there are alternatives (for those who really care, there's Linux), for everyone else there's Apple.
For what software?Remember, there now exist lots of essential line-of-business applications which simply do not have a non-Windows port.
'Run OSX' is not much of an answer if your factory runs CustomWidgetMaker0.3 written in Delphi, QuickBasic, DOS batch scripting and Excel macros.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31413310</id>
	<title>Re:Overreach.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268148720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft weren't forced to make that "please choose a browser" thing. It was Microsoft who suggested that solution.</p><p>They were convicted of trying to use their OS monopoly to create a browser monopoly. Which is just as much against the law, as when Standard Oil was the big monopoly (in case we have any Americans shaking their head about the lack of freedom for monopolies to break the law in Europe).</p><p>They had several options. They could have ripped the browser out of the OS. They could have stopped selling Windows in the EU. They could have continued breaking the law, and paying the ever increasing fines. But they came up with their own idea, and after a bit of negotiation, the EU accepted Microsofts solution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft were n't forced to make that " please choose a browser " thing .
It was Microsoft who suggested that solution.They were convicted of trying to use their OS monopoly to create a browser monopoly .
Which is just as much against the law , as when Standard Oil was the big monopoly ( in case we have any Americans shaking their head about the lack of freedom for monopolies to break the law in Europe ) .They had several options .
They could have ripped the browser out of the OS .
They could have stopped selling Windows in the EU .
They could have continued breaking the law , and paying the ever increasing fines .
But they came up with their own idea , and after a bit of negotiation , the EU accepted Microsofts solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft weren't forced to make that "please choose a browser" thing.
It was Microsoft who suggested that solution.They were convicted of trying to use their OS monopoly to create a browser monopoly.
Which is just as much against the law, as when Standard Oil was the big monopoly (in case we have any Americans shaking their head about the lack of freedom for monopolies to break the law in Europe).They had several options.
They could have ripped the browser out of the OS.
They could have stopped selling Windows in the EU.
They could have continued breaking the law, and paying the ever increasing fines.
But they came up with their own idea, and after a bit of negotiation, the EU accepted Microsofts solution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408468</id>
	<title>Re:Opera downloads tripled</title>
	<author>aldld</author>
	<datestamp>1268056860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seven, if you count the fact that I test my websites (for a max. of 1 minute) in Opera!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seven , if you count the fact that I test my websites ( for a max .
of 1 minute ) in Opera !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seven, if you count the fact that I test my websites (for a max.
of 1 minute) in Opera!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408196</id>
	<title>Re:Overreach.</title>
	<author>gzipped\_tar</author>
	<datestamp>1268055120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your post is modded down. You should have used "iChoice" rather than "Media Player Choice(TM)".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your post is modded down .
You should have used " iChoice " rather than " Media Player Choice ( TM ) " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your post is modded down.
You should have used "iChoice" rather than "Media Player Choice(TM)".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408390</id>
	<title>Re:Overreach.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268056320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK mods!  Where's all the mod-nuking for the use of "M$"?  Or is it OK if we're using it to pretend like we're not supporting Microsoft?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK mods !
Where 's all the mod-nuking for the use of " M $ " ?
Or is it OK if we 're using it to pretend like we 're not supporting Microsoft ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK mods!
Where's all the mod-nuking for the use of "M$"?
Or is it OK if we're using it to pretend like we're not supporting Microsoft?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408566</id>
	<title>Re:BTW</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268057580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is bootleg.</p><p>There is no standard here, and Europe is making it seem like it is easy to make a choice that can already be found in another way. Why not just policy, and get the icons on the desktop.</p><p>This is a way to boot into other Operating Systems within Windows, and that is a living nightmare. Delta rolling Windows is not the thing to do with a browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is bootleg.There is no standard here , and Europe is making it seem like it is easy to make a choice that can already be found in another way .
Why not just policy , and get the icons on the desktop.This is a way to boot into other Operating Systems within Windows , and that is a living nightmare .
Delta rolling Windows is not the thing to do with a browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is bootleg.There is no standard here, and Europe is making it seem like it is easy to make a choice that can already be found in another way.
Why not just policy, and get the icons on the desktop.This is a way to boot into other Operating Systems within Windows, and that is a living nightmare.
Delta rolling Windows is not the thing to do with a browser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31411140</id>
	<title>Re:informed decisions?</title>
	<author>trifish</author>
	<datestamp>1268127780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>and also having no intention to use Windows 7 any time in the near future</i></p><p>The browser ballot is presented to Windows XP and Vista users as well (via auto-update).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and also having no intention to use Windows 7 any time in the near futureThe browser ballot is presented to Windows XP and Vista users as well ( via auto-update ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and also having no intention to use Windows 7 any time in the near futureThe browser ballot is presented to Windows XP and Vista users as well (via auto-update).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409920</id>
	<title>Re:informed decisions?</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1268070180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Welcome to the human race. Most peoples' important life decisions are made emotionally, on a whim, or on a bet. Failing that, they ask a friend what they should do. Very few people think deeply about their situation, and even fewer confer any serious research (beyond the shlock pushed out by news agencies and the government) on all that many topics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome to the human race .
Most peoples ' important life decisions are made emotionally , on a whim , or on a bet .
Failing that , they ask a friend what they should do .
Very few people think deeply about their situation , and even fewer confer any serious research ( beyond the shlock pushed out by news agencies and the government ) on all that many topics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Welcome to the human race.
Most peoples' important life decisions are made emotionally, on a whim, or on a bet.
Failing that, they ask a friend what they should do.
Very few people think deeply about their situation, and even fewer confer any serious research (beyond the shlock pushed out by news agencies and the government) on all that many topics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407998</id>
	<title>How is this news?</title>
	<author>Jorl17</author>
	<datestamp>1268053860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>We all knew it would happen. If you know that X leads to Y and you also know that you will be doing X in Z time, then you know that, in said Z time, Y will happen.<br> <br>
X Y Z Means eXtreme eYebally microZoft, of course.<br> <br>Seriously, though, this was really expected. It's not that people actually like the browsers in such cases, but they just randomly click. I've had my grandfather randomly picking Firefox already; I've had my grandmother clicking an add that says "You are visitor 1M, you win a big prize!". It's the fact that many people are still "ignorant" or careless towards this question. <br> <br>

The dialog pops-up: "CHOOSE THY BROWSER". <br>Reaction: "What the hell is a browser? Choose? I just want to 'surf' the 'internet'. Hell, this one with the shiny colors and the fancy name should be good, I'll click it. [double-clicks instead of single-clicking]."<br> <br>All in all, I'm glad that people are being given the choice. But, really, those of us who care about it, already had the means to do it; it's the fact that we're fucking upset that other people don't get pulled into using them...<br>Jorl has spoken. Now mod up/down/sideways.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We all knew it would happen .
If you know that X leads to Y and you also know that you will be doing X in Z time , then you know that , in said Z time , Y will happen .
X Y Z Means eXtreme eYebally microZoft , of course .
Seriously , though , this was really expected .
It 's not that people actually like the browsers in such cases , but they just randomly click .
I 've had my grandfather randomly picking Firefox already ; I 've had my grandmother clicking an add that says " You are visitor 1M , you win a big prize ! " .
It 's the fact that many people are still " ignorant " or careless towards this question .
The dialog pops-up : " CHOOSE THY BROWSER " .
Reaction : " What the hell is a browser ?
Choose ? I just want to 'surf ' the 'internet' .
Hell , this one with the shiny colors and the fancy name should be good , I 'll click it .
[ double-clicks instead of single-clicking ] .
" All in all , I 'm glad that people are being given the choice .
But , really , those of us who care about it , already had the means to do it ; it 's the fact that we 're fucking upset that other people do n't get pulled into using them...Jorl has spoken .
Now mod up/down/sideways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We all knew it would happen.
If you know that X leads to Y and you also know that you will be doing X in Z time, then you know that, in said Z time, Y will happen.
X Y Z Means eXtreme eYebally microZoft, of course.
Seriously, though, this was really expected.
It's not that people actually like the browsers in such cases, but they just randomly click.
I've had my grandfather randomly picking Firefox already; I've had my grandmother clicking an add that says "You are visitor 1M, you win a big prize!".
It's the fact that many people are still "ignorant" or careless towards this question.
The dialog pops-up: "CHOOSE THY BROWSER".
Reaction: "What the hell is a browser?
Choose? I just want to 'surf' the 'internet'.
Hell, this one with the shiny colors and the fancy name should be good, I'll click it.
[double-clicks instead of single-clicking].
" All in all, I'm glad that people are being given the choice.
But, really, those of us who care about it, already had the means to do it; it's the fact that we're fucking upset that other people don't get pulled into using them...Jorl has spoken.
Now mod up/down/sideways.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407960</id>
	<title>BTW</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268053680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The script on that page uses a proper shuffle algorithm now (Fisher-Yates/Durstenfeld). If the page is viewed without Javascript, the order is fixed though, with IE being in the leftmost spot...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The script on that page uses a proper shuffle algorithm now ( Fisher-Yates/Durstenfeld ) .
If the page is viewed without Javascript , the order is fixed though , with IE being in the leftmost spot.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The script on that page uses a proper shuffle algorithm now (Fisher-Yates/Durstenfeld).
If the page is viewed without Javascript, the order is fixed though, with IE being in the leftmost spot...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408884</id>
	<title>You're missing your history lesson here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268059920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft is just now having to pay a ridiculously small price for some very monopolistic practices they used to strong arm PC manufacturers, support vendors and their own customers into a complete MS lock-in scenario.  We came perilously close to having no browser choices at all when M$ all but strangled Netscape out of existence by bundling internet explorer (and falsely claiming it was inextricably tied) into Windows.  They tried, and are still trying (unsuccessfully) to do this with Linux as well.</p><p>Once they have a dominant market share, M$ has demonstrated, repeatedly, that they do not know how to handle it in a way that is in the consumer's best interests. And this is all about consumer choice.</p><p>Business is important, but if push comes to shove it's a secondary priority to consumer choice. End of story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft is just now having to pay a ridiculously small price for some very monopolistic practices they used to strong arm PC manufacturers , support vendors and their own customers into a complete MS lock-in scenario .
We came perilously close to having no browser choices at all when M $ all but strangled Netscape out of existence by bundling internet explorer ( and falsely claiming it was inextricably tied ) into Windows .
They tried , and are still trying ( unsuccessfully ) to do this with Linux as well.Once they have a dominant market share , M $ has demonstrated , repeatedly , that they do not know how to handle it in a way that is in the consumer 's best interests .
And this is all about consumer choice.Business is important , but if push comes to shove it 's a secondary priority to consumer choice .
End of story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft is just now having to pay a ridiculously small price for some very monopolistic practices they used to strong arm PC manufacturers, support vendors and their own customers into a complete MS lock-in scenario.
We came perilously close to having no browser choices at all when M$ all but strangled Netscape out of existence by bundling internet explorer (and falsely claiming it was inextricably tied) into Windows.
They tried, and are still trying (unsuccessfully) to do this with Linux as well.Once they have a dominant market share, M$ has demonstrated, repeatedly, that they do not know how to handle it in a way that is in the consumer's best interests.
And this is all about consumer choice.Business is important, but if push comes to shove it's a secondary priority to consumer choice.
End of story.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31411692</id>
	<title>Re:BTW</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268136600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So surely the big story is that Microsoft could not write a shuffle algorithm that would give you a pass mark in a first year computer science test (the first version anyway). Well it was founded by a drop-out after all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So surely the big story is that Microsoft could not write a shuffle algorithm that would give you a pass mark in a first year computer science test ( the first version anyway ) .
Well it was founded by a drop-out after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So surely the big story is that Microsoft could not write a shuffle algorithm that would give you a pass mark in a first year computer science test (the first version anyway).
Well it was founded by a drop-out after all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408048</id>
	<title>Opera downloads tripled</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268054160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Opera Software, based in Oslo, said downloads of its browser in Belgium, France, Britain, Poland, and Spain had tripled since the screen began to appear.</p></div></blockquote><p>
So now that makes six Opera users. And they'll all be crowing that this was all due to a complaint raised first by Opera!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Opera Software , based in Oslo , said downloads of its browser in Belgium , France , Britain , Poland , and Spain had tripled since the screen began to appear .
So now that makes six Opera users .
And they 'll all be crowing that this was all due to a complaint raised first by Opera !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opera Software, based in Oslo, said downloads of its browser in Belgium, France, Britain, Poland, and Spain had tripled since the screen began to appear.
So now that makes six Opera users.
And they'll all be crowing that this was all due to a complaint raised first by Opera!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409200</id>
	<title>Re:Overreach.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268062680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple easily has an equivalent level of monopoly in the personal media player market (iPod) and the smartphone market (iPhone)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... so i think the original poster's points are still valid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple easily has an equivalent level of monopoly in the personal media player market ( iPod ) and the smartphone market ( iPhone ) ... so i think the original poster 's points are still valid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple easily has an equivalent level of monopoly in the personal media player market (iPod) and the smartphone market (iPhone) ... so i think the original poster's points are still valid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408786</id>
	<title>Re:Some things, you need to 'force'.</title>
	<author>gangien</author>
	<datestamp>1268059140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it's not necessary at all.  You think the milk you drink is fresh and ok because the FDA makes it, or because you wouldn't buy it, if it wasn't?</p><p>This is even more ridiculous, because no one's health is at stake.  It's a friggin browser, and all of the major ones are available for free anyways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's not necessary at all .
You think the milk you drink is fresh and ok because the FDA makes it , or because you would n't buy it , if it was n't ? This is even more ridiculous , because no one 's health is at stake .
It 's a friggin browser , and all of the major ones are available for free anyways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's not necessary at all.
You think the milk you drink is fresh and ok because the FDA makes it, or because you wouldn't buy it, if it wasn't?This is even more ridiculous, because no one's health is at stake.
It's a friggin browser, and all of the major ones are available for free anyways.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408276</id>
	<title>Re:informed decisions?</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1268055660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a "find out more" link under every browser description in the selection screen.</p><p>That said, of all browsers, IE seems to have the most coherent and persuasive page linked from there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a " find out more " link under every browser description in the selection screen.That said , of all browsers , IE seems to have the most coherent and persuasive page linked from there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a "find out more" link under every browser description in the selection screen.That said, of all browsers, IE seems to have the most coherent and persuasive page linked from there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407938</id>
	<title>Re:Opera with or without ads?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268053620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yes there haven't been ads since 2005<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera\_browser#History</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yes there have n't been ads since 2005http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera \ _browser # History</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yes there haven't been ads since 2005http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera\_browser#History</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409050</id>
	<title>Re:Overreach.</title>
	<author>Totenglocke</author>
	<datestamp>1268061360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that Windows (and IE) are not a monopoly.  Are they the largest player?  Yes, but there are alternatives (for those who really care, there's Linux), for everyone else there's Apple.  Unless you can prove that MS forces stores to sell Mac's for more money (they don't, Apple gladly artificially inflates their prices on their own), then you can't claim that Windows is a monopoly.  Just because it's the easiest to use cheaper alternative to a Mac doesn't mean it's a monopoly.  IE is also not a monopoly since you can download a different browser any time you choose.  The overwhelming majority of people who use IE WANT to use it - I can't count how many people, even in IT, say "Why would I use something other than IE?" even after you give them an hour long dissertation on why IE is one of the worst browsers.</p><p>Yes, I realize it's Trendy and Cool TM (Apple owns this TM, probably has it copyrighted too) to hate anything from MS, but they have done nothing wrong by bundling a browser with their OS - people expect a browser and media player with their OS, plus there's nothing stopping companies such as Dell from installing different browsers if they choose (most new Dells have Chrome installed).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that Windows ( and IE ) are not a monopoly .
Are they the largest player ?
Yes , but there are alternatives ( for those who really care , there 's Linux ) , for everyone else there 's Apple .
Unless you can prove that MS forces stores to sell Mac 's for more money ( they do n't , Apple gladly artificially inflates their prices on their own ) , then you ca n't claim that Windows is a monopoly .
Just because it 's the easiest to use cheaper alternative to a Mac does n't mean it 's a monopoly .
IE is also not a monopoly since you can download a different browser any time you choose .
The overwhelming majority of people who use IE WANT to use it - I ca n't count how many people , even in IT , say " Why would I use something other than IE ?
" even after you give them an hour long dissertation on why IE is one of the worst browsers.Yes , I realize it 's Trendy and Cool TM ( Apple owns this TM , probably has it copyrighted too ) to hate anything from MS , but they have done nothing wrong by bundling a browser with their OS - people expect a browser and media player with their OS , plus there 's nothing stopping companies such as Dell from installing different browsers if they choose ( most new Dells have Chrome installed ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that Windows (and IE) are not a monopoly.
Are they the largest player?
Yes, but there are alternatives (for those who really care, there's Linux), for everyone else there's Apple.
Unless you can prove that MS forces stores to sell Mac's for more money (they don't, Apple gladly artificially inflates their prices on their own), then you can't claim that Windows is a monopoly.
Just because it's the easiest to use cheaper alternative to a Mac doesn't mean it's a monopoly.
IE is also not a monopoly since you can download a different browser any time you choose.
The overwhelming majority of people who use IE WANT to use it - I can't count how many people, even in IT, say "Why would I use something other than IE?
" even after you give them an hour long dissertation on why IE is one of the worst browsers.Yes, I realize it's Trendy and Cool TM (Apple owns this TM, probably has it copyrighted too) to hate anything from MS, but they have done nothing wrong by bundling a browser with their OS - people expect a browser and media player with their OS, plus there's nothing stopping companies such as Dell from installing different browsers if they choose (most new Dells have Chrome installed).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408578</id>
	<title>Re:Overreach.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268057700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I am aware Microsoft has been a little overreaching with their software practices in the past</p></div><p>Congratulations, sir, for winning the understatement of the day award.</p><p>They barely got off in 1991, thanks to a deadlocked panel.  They settled with the DOJ in 1994 to end their investigation into abusive monopoly practices, and then they breached that settlement, prompting the trial in 1998 involving 20+ states and the US Department of Justice.</p><p>In that trial, witnesses intentionally failed to answer questions, claimed not to recall, and provided answers directly contrary to the documentary evidence.  Microsoft submitted falsified video evidence and edited demonstrations regarding the operation of its software and the process involved in switching to that of competitors.</p><p>They were convicted of abusive practices, a finding not overturned on appeal.</p><p>Similar EU proceedings produced the ballot screen, also a minor slap on the wrist.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>What if I started a class action suit against Apple because Itunes is installed by default, and that is a "monopoly" on digital music storefronts?</p></div><p>It's not.  It's a dominant player, but it's not a monopoly, and even if it were, it has not engaged in unlawful leveraging of that power.</p><p>Microsoft's IE trouble isn't because it's included with Windows--it's because they launched IE as a separate product and then violated their DOJ agreement when they started <em>integrating</em> into Windows.  It took seven years of legal action to get them to un-integrate it.</p><p>Had they complied with their original obligations and kept the products separate while allowing OEMs to bundle other browsers without being penalized, they wouldn't be in this situation and no one would care that MSIE is the default browser on MS Windows.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes they are the main provider of consumer level OS's to the big-box retailers. So let them package and run by default the software of their choosing. People don't have to buy M$</p></div><p>Contradiction of points.  The difficulty of avoiding Microsoft and their misconduct in prior settlements is the major reason they face this penalty.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>This would be like forcing a leading car manufacturer to offer brakes from 3rd party companies, because the buyers are complacent enough to accept their shitty factory brakes, but litigation hungry enough to file complaints about them.</p></div><p>Ah, the inept car analogy.  Now I know I'm just feeding the trolls.</p><p>1.  No leading car manufacturer uses first-party brakes.<br>2.  Brakes are an integral component of a car; IE was a separate product that Microsoft decided to weave into Windows specifically to quash competing products, using their captive monopoly audience (both OEMs and customers) to do so.<br>3.  MS is not being punished for its selection of a shitty browser, but for its repeated breach of legally-binding settlements requiring that they not bundle any additional products with Windows.  Trying to tie the IE codebase into the OS was an attempt to dodge that bullet by calling IE a "feature" and not a product.<br>4.  Unless that car company was using its cars in order to squeeze out other brake manufacturers, and made it such that installing third party brakes meant adding an extension onto the axles, with the MS brakes still mounted to the wheel, and then forcing all of its dealers and licensed maintenance shops to use MS brakes and not offer any others for aftermarket installation, it would not be engaging in similar conduct.<br>5.  Even if the car company did engage in that conduct, if it complied with the original penalty (no mandatory bundling), it would still more than likely be permitted to install its brakes as the default choice.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am aware Microsoft has been a little overreaching with their software practices in the pastCongratulations , sir , for winning the understatement of the day award.They barely got off in 1991 , thanks to a deadlocked panel .
They settled with the DOJ in 1994 to end their investigation into abusive monopoly practices , and then they breached that settlement , prompting the trial in 1998 involving 20 + states and the US Department of Justice.In that trial , witnesses intentionally failed to answer questions , claimed not to recall , and provided answers directly contrary to the documentary evidence .
Microsoft submitted falsified video evidence and edited demonstrations regarding the operation of its software and the process involved in switching to that of competitors.They were convicted of abusive practices , a finding not overturned on appeal.Similar EU proceedings produced the ballot screen , also a minor slap on the wrist.What if I started a class action suit against Apple because Itunes is installed by default , and that is a " monopoly " on digital music storefronts ? It 's not .
It 's a dominant player , but it 's not a monopoly , and even if it were , it has not engaged in unlawful leveraging of that power.Microsoft 's IE trouble is n't because it 's included with Windows--it 's because they launched IE as a separate product and then violated their DOJ agreement when they started integrating into Windows .
It took seven years of legal action to get them to un-integrate it.Had they complied with their original obligations and kept the products separate while allowing OEMs to bundle other browsers without being penalized , they would n't be in this situation and no one would care that MSIE is the default browser on MS Windows.Yes they are the main provider of consumer level OS 's to the big-box retailers .
So let them package and run by default the software of their choosing .
People do n't have to buy M $ Contradiction of points .
The difficulty of avoiding Microsoft and their misconduct in prior settlements is the major reason they face this penalty.This would be like forcing a leading car manufacturer to offer brakes from 3rd party companies , because the buyers are complacent enough to accept their shitty factory brakes , but litigation hungry enough to file complaints about them.Ah , the inept car analogy .
Now I know I 'm just feeding the trolls.1 .
No leading car manufacturer uses first-party brakes.2 .
Brakes are an integral component of a car ; IE was a separate product that Microsoft decided to weave into Windows specifically to quash competing products , using their captive monopoly audience ( both OEMs and customers ) to do so.3 .
MS is not being punished for its selection of a shitty browser , but for its repeated breach of legally-binding settlements requiring that they not bundle any additional products with Windows .
Trying to tie the IE codebase into the OS was an attempt to dodge that bullet by calling IE a " feature " and not a product.4 .
Unless that car company was using its cars in order to squeeze out other brake manufacturers , and made it such that installing third party brakes meant adding an extension onto the axles , with the MS brakes still mounted to the wheel , and then forcing all of its dealers and licensed maintenance shops to use MS brakes and not offer any others for aftermarket installation , it would not be engaging in similar conduct.5 .
Even if the car company did engage in that conduct , if it complied with the original penalty ( no mandatory bundling ) , it would still more than likely be permitted to install its brakes as the default choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am aware Microsoft has been a little overreaching with their software practices in the pastCongratulations, sir, for winning the understatement of the day award.They barely got off in 1991, thanks to a deadlocked panel.
They settled with the DOJ in 1994 to end their investigation into abusive monopoly practices, and then they breached that settlement, prompting the trial in 1998 involving 20+ states and the US Department of Justice.In that trial, witnesses intentionally failed to answer questions, claimed not to recall, and provided answers directly contrary to the documentary evidence.
Microsoft submitted falsified video evidence and edited demonstrations regarding the operation of its software and the process involved in switching to that of competitors.They were convicted of abusive practices, a finding not overturned on appeal.Similar EU proceedings produced the ballot screen, also a minor slap on the wrist.What if I started a class action suit against Apple because Itunes is installed by default, and that is a "monopoly" on digital music storefronts?It's not.
It's a dominant player, but it's not a monopoly, and even if it were, it has not engaged in unlawful leveraging of that power.Microsoft's IE trouble isn't because it's included with Windows--it's because they launched IE as a separate product and then violated their DOJ agreement when they started integrating into Windows.
It took seven years of legal action to get them to un-integrate it.Had they complied with their original obligations and kept the products separate while allowing OEMs to bundle other browsers without being penalized, they wouldn't be in this situation and no one would care that MSIE is the default browser on MS Windows.Yes they are the main provider of consumer level OS's to the big-box retailers.
So let them package and run by default the software of their choosing.
People don't have to buy M$Contradiction of points.
The difficulty of avoiding Microsoft and their misconduct in prior settlements is the major reason they face this penalty.This would be like forcing a leading car manufacturer to offer brakes from 3rd party companies, because the buyers are complacent enough to accept their shitty factory brakes, but litigation hungry enough to file complaints about them.Ah, the inept car analogy.
Now I know I'm just feeding the trolls.1.
No leading car manufacturer uses first-party brakes.2.
Brakes are an integral component of a car; IE was a separate product that Microsoft decided to weave into Windows specifically to quash competing products, using their captive monopoly audience (both OEMs and customers) to do so.3.
MS is not being punished for its selection of a shitty browser, but for its repeated breach of legally-binding settlements requiring that they not bundle any additional products with Windows.
Trying to tie the IE codebase into the OS was an attempt to dodge that bullet by calling IE a "feature" and not a product.4.
Unless that car company was using its cars in order to squeeze out other brake manufacturers, and made it such that installing third party brakes meant adding an extension onto the axles, with the MS brakes still mounted to the wheel, and then forcing all of its dealers and licensed maintenance shops to use MS brakes and not offer any others for aftermarket installation, it would not be engaging in similar conduct.5.
Even if the car company did engage in that conduct, if it complied with the original penalty (no mandatory bundling), it would still more than likely be permitted to install its brakes as the default choice.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31411100</id>
	<title>Re:Overreach.</title>
	<author>wye43</author>
	<datestamp>1268127180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well you are a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPZl9Om5vlU" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow"> <i>festizio</i> </a> [youtube.com]! See, I can make up words too, sister.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well you are a festizio [ youtube.com ] !
See , I can make up words too , sister .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well you are a  festizio  [youtube.com]!
See, I can make up words too, sister.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31411078</id>
	<title>Re:informed decisions?</title>
	<author>trickyD1ck</author>
	<datestamp>1268126940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>is there any way to measure how many of these downloads were due to users making an informed choice</p></div><p>Hate to break it to you, but users don't care. And neither should you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>is there any way to measure how many of these downloads were due to users making an informed choiceHate to break it to you , but users do n't care .
And neither should you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is there any way to measure how many of these downloads were due to users making an informed choiceHate to break it to you, but users don't care.
And neither should you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31410392</id>
	<title>Re:Awareness is the best result.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268074800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're wrong.</p><p>I'm a geek and I don't care which browser I use, either iron for linux or swiftfox same shit different day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're wrong.I 'm a geek and I do n't care which browser I use , either iron for linux or swiftfox same shit different day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're wrong.I'm a geek and I don't care which browser I use, either iron for linux or swiftfox same shit different day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407986</id>
	<title>Re:Opera with or without ads?</title>
	<author>Alien1024</author>
	<datestamp>1268053800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Opera on desktops has been free (as in beer) and ad-free for a long, long time, and the fastest browser until Chrome came along.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Opera on desktops has been free ( as in beer ) and ad-free for a long , long time , and the fastest browser until Chrome came along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opera on desktops has been free (as in beer) and ad-free for a long, long time, and the fastest browser until Chrome came along.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409412</id>
	<title>Re:Overreach.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268064660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did everyone forget what started this???  It was Microsoft who threatened to stop providing OEM copies of Windows to major manufacturers because they included other brand web browsers with their computers (eg Netscape)</p><p>Microsoft literally forced Internet Explorer down manufacturers throats using their monopoly in the desktop PC market. This is backlash from that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did everyone forget what started this ? ? ?
It was Microsoft who threatened to stop providing OEM copies of Windows to major manufacturers because they included other brand web browsers with their computers ( eg Netscape ) Microsoft literally forced Internet Explorer down manufacturers throats using their monopoly in the desktop PC market .
This is backlash from that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did everyone forget what started this???
It was Microsoft who threatened to stop providing OEM copies of Windows to major manufacturers because they included other brand web browsers with their computers (eg Netscape)Microsoft literally forced Internet Explorer down manufacturers throats using their monopoly in the desktop PC market.
This is backlash from that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408800</id>
	<title>Re:How is this news?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268059260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The dialog pops-up: "CHOOSE THY BROWSER".<br>Reaction: "What the hell is a browser? Choose? I just want to 'surf' the 'internet'. Hell, this one with the shiny colors and the fancy name should be good, I'll click it. [double-clicks instead of single-clicking]."</p></div><p>Funny that you say this. Even as informed techies we are humans still reacting this exact in daily life. The way our procedural minds handle a completely uninformed choice process is what sets us appart from Joe Sixpack.</p><p>I had an itch and bought a random Gundam game without any prior review or series info other than having watched a 10 year old part of their universe (Gundam Wing.) That put me in a real-life position of having a desire, like "I just want to '[shoot mechs and have fun on my 3D console.]' I was met with surprise when I first ran the game... they just said "CHOOSE THY [CHARACTER]" and gave me 5 or 6 different pilots, so you see the parallel with giving someone browsers they have no idea about.</p><p>I made a random guess based on looks the first time around. I can see that people feel this exact way when presented a browser screen on a new PC. I would later end checking on wikipedia and realizing that Gundam has so many characters and YEARLY new installments of their universe, that a newbie would have little chance of knowing the backstory and playing with the one guy they like most first. What my geek self did is play a few sessions with each character, feel their weaknesses, strengths, backstory and mech's cool factor, and then try the others more or less systematically.</p><p>An average person in this situation (where it not a game you'll play through with a choice to make a change of choice) is just going to pick one and stick to it unless the experience is really bad. So, let me ask you this... is there a way to "try" before you keep on this whole ballot screen business? It sounds like a "set it and forget it" thing from the news we've read so far.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The dialog pops-up : " CHOOSE THY BROWSER " .Reaction : " What the hell is a browser ?
Choose ? I just want to 'surf ' the 'internet' .
Hell , this one with the shiny colors and the fancy name should be good , I 'll click it .
[ double-clicks instead of single-clicking ] .
" Funny that you say this .
Even as informed techies we are humans still reacting this exact in daily life .
The way our procedural minds handle a completely uninformed choice process is what sets us appart from Joe Sixpack.I had an itch and bought a random Gundam game without any prior review or series info other than having watched a 10 year old part of their universe ( Gundam Wing .
) That put me in a real-life position of having a desire , like " I just want to ' [ shoot mechs and have fun on my 3D console .
] ' I was met with surprise when I first ran the game... they just said " CHOOSE THY [ CHARACTER ] " and gave me 5 or 6 different pilots , so you see the parallel with giving someone browsers they have no idea about.I made a random guess based on looks the first time around .
I can see that people feel this exact way when presented a browser screen on a new PC .
I would later end checking on wikipedia and realizing that Gundam has so many characters and YEARLY new installments of their universe , that a newbie would have little chance of knowing the backstory and playing with the one guy they like most first .
What my geek self did is play a few sessions with each character , feel their weaknesses , strengths , backstory and mech 's cool factor , and then try the others more or less systematically.An average person in this situation ( where it not a game you 'll play through with a choice to make a change of choice ) is just going to pick one and stick to it unless the experience is really bad .
So , let me ask you this... is there a way to " try " before you keep on this whole ballot screen business ?
It sounds like a " set it and forget it " thing from the news we 've read so far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The dialog pops-up: "CHOOSE THY BROWSER".Reaction: "What the hell is a browser?
Choose? I just want to 'surf' the 'internet'.
Hell, this one with the shiny colors and the fancy name should be good, I'll click it.
[double-clicks instead of single-clicking].
"Funny that you say this.
Even as informed techies we are humans still reacting this exact in daily life.
The way our procedural minds handle a completely uninformed choice process is what sets us appart from Joe Sixpack.I had an itch and bought a random Gundam game without any prior review or series info other than having watched a 10 year old part of their universe (Gundam Wing.
) That put me in a real-life position of having a desire, like "I just want to '[shoot mechs and have fun on my 3D console.
]' I was met with surprise when I first ran the game... they just said "CHOOSE THY [CHARACTER]" and gave me 5 or 6 different pilots, so you see the parallel with giving someone browsers they have no idea about.I made a random guess based on looks the first time around.
I can see that people feel this exact way when presented a browser screen on a new PC.
I would later end checking on wikipedia and realizing that Gundam has so many characters and YEARLY new installments of their universe, that a newbie would have little chance of knowing the backstory and playing with the one guy they like most first.
What my geek self did is play a few sessions with each character, feel their weaknesses, strengths, backstory and mech's cool factor, and then try the others more or less systematically.An average person in this situation (where it not a game you'll play through with a choice to make a change of choice) is just going to pick one and stick to it unless the experience is really bad.
So, let me ask you this... is there a way to "try" before you keep on this whole ballot screen business?
It sounds like a "set it and forget it" thing from the news we've read so far.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408440</id>
	<title>Re:Opera downloads tripled</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268056680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seven with me!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seven with me !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seven with me!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408854</id>
	<title>Re:Some things, you need to 'force'.</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1268059740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...Um, if the FDA would go away tomorrow, most things would still remain the same, only a lot more people would be aware of what they were eating and tainted foods would go bankrupt.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...Um , if the FDA would go away tomorrow , most things would still remain the same , only a lot more people would be aware of what they were eating and tainted foods would go bankrupt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Um, if the FDA would go away tomorrow, most things would still remain the same, only a lot more people would be aware of what they were eating and tainted foods would go bankrupt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408890</id>
	<title>Re:Awareness is the best result.</title>
	<author>Pence128</author>
	<datestamp>1268059980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you're overestimating the average user's aversion to reading.<br>
<br>
"Firefox? I think I saw that in a popup once. It was anoying, so I just clicked Internet. Stupid Microsoft"</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 're overestimating the average user 's aversion to reading .
" Firefox ? I think I saw that in a popup once .
It was anoying , so I just clicked Internet .
Stupid Microsoft "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you're overestimating the average user's aversion to reading.
"Firefox? I think I saw that in a popup once.
It was anoying, so I just clicked Internet.
Stupid Microsoft"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409618</id>
	<title>Re:Overreach.</title>
	<author>jmac\_the\_man</author>
	<datestamp>1268066340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What if the thing they had the monopoly on was a hardware device of some sort, and they were using the hardware device to promote the use of iTunes?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if the thing they had the monopoly on was a hardware device of some sort , and they were using the hardware device to promote the use of iTunes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if the thing they had the monopoly on was a hardware device of some sort, and they were using the hardware device to promote the use of iTunes?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31419362</id>
	<title>Re:Opera downloads tripled</title>
	<author>hkmwbz</author>
	<datestamp>1268130240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Opera actually has about 50 million desktop users and about 50 million users of Opera Mini. That's 100 million users (before counting users of other products). Mozilla claims that Firefox has 300-400 million users. Do the math.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Opera actually has about 50 million desktop users and about 50 million users of Opera Mini .
That 's 100 million users ( before counting users of other products ) .
Mozilla claims that Firefox has 300-400 million users .
Do the math .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opera actually has about 50 million desktop users and about 50 million users of Opera Mini.
That's 100 million users (before counting users of other products).
Mozilla claims that Firefox has 300-400 million users.
Do the math.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408052</id>
	<title>Awareness is the best result.</title>
	<author>headkase</author>
	<datestamp>1268054160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The best outcome of this in light of Microsoft's monopoly position is that it breaks how they got there: many people use Internet Explorer simply because they are <i>unaware</i> of alternatives.  This puts that front-and-center.  No longer will a more experienced user get strange looks when they mention another browser with a funny name.  Instead quite a few people will have seen the ballot screen and especially initially it will raise the talk about them.  Long-term it is good as well, once people become aware they have a choice in browsers they may also as well begin to wonder if they have choices elsewhere.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The best outcome of this in light of Microsoft 's monopoly position is that it breaks how they got there : many people use Internet Explorer simply because they are unaware of alternatives .
This puts that front-and-center .
No longer will a more experienced user get strange looks when they mention another browser with a funny name .
Instead quite a few people will have seen the ballot screen and especially initially it will raise the talk about them .
Long-term it is good as well , once people become aware they have a choice in browsers they may also as well begin to wonder if they have choices elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best outcome of this in light of Microsoft's monopoly position is that it breaks how they got there: many people use Internet Explorer simply because they are unaware of alternatives.
This puts that front-and-center.
No longer will a more experienced user get strange looks when they mention another browser with a funny name.
Instead quite a few people will have seen the ballot screen and especially initially it will raise the talk about them.
Long-term it is good as well, once people become aware they have a choice in browsers they may also as well begin to wonder if they have choices elsewhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31410272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31411350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31410764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31411140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31413310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31411692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31412316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31416858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31410600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31413402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31411100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31419362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31411364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31410916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31412966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31411078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31419412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31410392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_231231_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31413714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_231231.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408348
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31410916
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31419412
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31410392
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_231231.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407924
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407938
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_231231.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31419362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408468
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_231231.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408522
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_231231.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31413714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31411350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31410600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408196
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408490
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409200
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408792
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409050
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31410272
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409374
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31411100
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409794
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31412966
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31411364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31413310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408396
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408854
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408786
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_231231.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31413402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31412316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31411692
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_231231.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31410764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_231231.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31407968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31411078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31416858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31411140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31408276
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_231231.31409574
</commentlist>
</conversation>
