<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_14_0511226</id>
	<title>A Skeptical Comparison of HTML5 Video Playback To Flash</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1268557380000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>gollum123 writes <i>"Think we'd all be better off if HTML5 could somehow instantly replace Flash overnight? Not necessarily, according to a set of comparisons from Jan Ozer of the Streaming Learning Center website, which found that while HTML5 did come out ahead in many respects, it <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/10/html5-vs-flash-comparison-finds-a-few-surprises-settles-few-de/">wasn't exactly a clear winner</a>.  They did find that HTML5 clearly performed better than Flash 10 or 10.1 in Safari on a Mac, although the differences were less clear cut in Google Chrome or Firefox. On the other hand, Flash more than held its own on Windows, and Flash Player 10.1 was actually 58\% more efficient than HTML5 in Google Chrome on the Windows system tested. As you may have deduced, one of the big factors accounting for that discrepancy is that Flash is able to take advantage of GPU hardware acceleration in Windows, while Adobe is effectively cut out of the loop on Mac."</i>

gollum123 also links to additional tests indicating that Flash "<a href="http://www.mikechambers.com/blog/2010/03/01/relative-performance-of-rich-media-content-across-browsers-and-operating-systems/">does not perform consistently worse on Mac</a> than on Windows."</htmltext>
<tokenext>gollum123 writes " Think we 'd all be better off if HTML5 could somehow instantly replace Flash overnight ?
Not necessarily , according to a set of comparisons from Jan Ozer of the Streaming Learning Center website , which found that while HTML5 did come out ahead in many respects , it was n't exactly a clear winner .
They did find that HTML5 clearly performed better than Flash 10 or 10.1 in Safari on a Mac , although the differences were less clear cut in Google Chrome or Firefox .
On the other hand , Flash more than held its own on Windows , and Flash Player 10.1 was actually 58 \ % more efficient than HTML5 in Google Chrome on the Windows system tested .
As you may have deduced , one of the big factors accounting for that discrepancy is that Flash is able to take advantage of GPU hardware acceleration in Windows , while Adobe is effectively cut out of the loop on Mac .
" gollum123 also links to additional tests indicating that Flash " does not perform consistently worse on Mac than on Windows .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>gollum123 writes "Think we'd all be better off if HTML5 could somehow instantly replace Flash overnight?
Not necessarily, according to a set of comparisons from Jan Ozer of the Streaming Learning Center website, which found that while HTML5 did come out ahead in many respects, it wasn't exactly a clear winner.
They did find that HTML5 clearly performed better than Flash 10 or 10.1 in Safari on a Mac, although the differences were less clear cut in Google Chrome or Firefox.
On the other hand, Flash more than held its own on Windows, and Flash Player 10.1 was actually 58\% more efficient than HTML5 in Google Chrome on the Windows system tested.
As you may have deduced, one of the big factors accounting for that discrepancy is that Flash is able to take advantage of GPU hardware acceleration in Windows, while Adobe is effectively cut out of the loop on Mac.
"

gollum123 also links to additional tests indicating that Flash "does not perform consistently worse on Mac than on Windows.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471388</id>
	<title>Re:Flash aint so bad</title>
	<author>Korin43</author>
	<datestamp>1268571840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just think Flash is annoying. It messes with how my browser works. Right click working properly? Nope. ctrl+t (new tab), ctrl+tab (next tab), ctrl+f4 (close tab)? Nope. Mouse gestures? Nope. If Flash acted like it was part of a web page, it wouldn't annoy me. As it is, it reminds me of cutting a hole in my browser and seeing something else through it, and I don't think there's any way to fix that without customizing Flash for every browser.<br>
<br>
Also, the video/audio tags make more sense from a programming perspective. If you want to add video to a web page, it makes more sense to have a single, fairly simple video tag than an embed + writing a flash program to display a video.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just think Flash is annoying .
It messes with how my browser works .
Right click working properly ?
Nope. ctrl + t ( new tab ) , ctrl + tab ( next tab ) , ctrl + f4 ( close tab ) ?
Nope. Mouse gestures ?
Nope. If Flash acted like it was part of a web page , it would n't annoy me .
As it is , it reminds me of cutting a hole in my browser and seeing something else through it , and I do n't think there 's any way to fix that without customizing Flash for every browser .
Also , the video/audio tags make more sense from a programming perspective .
If you want to add video to a web page , it makes more sense to have a single , fairly simple video tag than an embed + writing a flash program to display a video .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just think Flash is annoying.
It messes with how my browser works.
Right click working properly?
Nope. ctrl+t (new tab), ctrl+tab (next tab), ctrl+f4 (close tab)?
Nope. Mouse gestures?
Nope. If Flash acted like it was part of a web page, it wouldn't annoy me.
As it is, it reminds me of cutting a hole in my browser and seeing something else through it, and I don't think there's any way to fix that without customizing Flash for every browser.
Also, the video/audio tags make more sense from a programming perspective.
If you want to add video to a web page, it makes more sense to have a single, fairly simple video tag than an embed + writing a flash program to display a video.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472988</id>
	<title>Re:Honestly</title>
	<author>roman\_mir</author>
	<datestamp>1268590440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NoFlash FireFox add on is so popular because people hate flash.  I only have it because of youtube and once it's not needed there, well, there will be no flash plugin on my machines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NoFlash FireFox add on is so popular because people hate flash .
I only have it because of youtube and once it 's not needed there , well , there will be no flash plugin on my machines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NoFlash FireFox add on is so popular because people hate flash.
I only have it because of youtube and once it's not needed there, well, there will be no flash plugin on my machines.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471904</id>
	<title>Re:I've yet to see HTML5 video work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268579040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, there's something badly wrong with your system then.  I ran he video, and my browser went from using 10-20\% of one core (other stuff in background tabs) to using 30-50\%, in both in-frame and full-window mode.  This is on a 2.16GHz Core 2 Duo.  </p><p>
And I'm not sure why you think HTML 5 can't use the GPU.  Flash - obviously - can't do anything the browser can't, so if Flash can use the GPU then so can the browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , there 's something badly wrong with your system then .
I ran he video , and my browser went from using 10-20 \ % of one core ( other stuff in background tabs ) to using 30-50 \ % , in both in-frame and full-window mode .
This is on a 2.16GHz Core 2 Duo .
And I 'm not sure why you think HTML 5 ca n't use the GPU .
Flash - obviously - ca n't do anything the browser ca n't , so if Flash can use the GPU then so can the browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, there's something badly wrong with your system then.
I ran he video, and my browser went from using 10-20\% of one core (other stuff in background tabs) to using 30-50\%, in both in-frame and full-window mode.
This is on a 2.16GHz Core 2 Duo.
And I'm not sure why you think HTML 5 can't use the GPU.
Flash - obviously - can't do anything the browser can't, so if Flash can use the GPU then so can the browser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31473330</id>
	<title>Re:I've yet to see HTML5 video work</title>
	<author>hairyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1268593380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, I so rarely get to use this in a sentence...WHOOSH! Kinda missed the word <strong>netbox</strong> there, didn't ya? Netboxes are by their very definition not as powerful (or as energy sucking) as a Core2Duo. My Sempron (which I am typing this on which is great for web surfing and Youtube) is actually a little more powerful than your average Atom, since Atom is an in order CPU, so if it redlines mine and makes a slideshow you can give it up working worth a damn on all those netbooks being sold today.</p><p>You also seem to have missed that <em>without</em> any hardware acceleration SD video on H.264 flash is smooth even full screen, while this video even in a teeny tiny window was a stuttering mess. And since to be truly "free" and not be just another patent encumbered format like flash it will have to be HTML5+Theora, which has zero hardware acceleration, while H.264 already has hardware acceleration out for just about every kind of device, including this 4 year old netbox if I want to shell out $60 for a 4350AGP card, I just don't see HTML5 doing much. </p><p>

For most folks Flash works, and that is all they care about. As long as I can watch video without having to fire up my quad I'm happy, as the whole argument over patents doesn't affect me. But if we have to toss every single core on the planet, as well as every netbook and netbox that didn't come with ION, just to watch video in HTML5 I am sensing a serious fail here. ATM flash just works better on older hardware than HTML5, at least from what I'm seeing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , I so rarely get to use this in a sentence...WHOOSH !
Kinda missed the word netbox there , did n't ya ?
Netboxes are by their very definition not as powerful ( or as energy sucking ) as a Core2Duo .
My Sempron ( which I am typing this on which is great for web surfing and Youtube ) is actually a little more powerful than your average Atom , since Atom is an in order CPU , so if it redlines mine and makes a slideshow you can give it up working worth a damn on all those netbooks being sold today.You also seem to have missed that without any hardware acceleration SD video on H.264 flash is smooth even full screen , while this video even in a teeny tiny window was a stuttering mess .
And since to be truly " free " and not be just another patent encumbered format like flash it will have to be HTML5 + Theora , which has zero hardware acceleration , while H.264 already has hardware acceleration out for just about every kind of device , including this 4 year old netbox if I want to shell out $ 60 for a 4350AGP card , I just do n't see HTML5 doing much .
For most folks Flash works , and that is all they care about .
As long as I can watch video without having to fire up my quad I 'm happy , as the whole argument over patents does n't affect me .
But if we have to toss every single core on the planet , as well as every netbook and netbox that did n't come with ION , just to watch video in HTML5 I am sensing a serious fail here .
ATM flash just works better on older hardware than HTML5 , at least from what I 'm seeing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, I so rarely get to use this in a sentence...WHOOSH!
Kinda missed the word netbox there, didn't ya?
Netboxes are by their very definition not as powerful (or as energy sucking) as a Core2Duo.
My Sempron (which I am typing this on which is great for web surfing and Youtube) is actually a little more powerful than your average Atom, since Atom is an in order CPU, so if it redlines mine and makes a slideshow you can give it up working worth a damn on all those netbooks being sold today.You also seem to have missed that without any hardware acceleration SD video on H.264 flash is smooth even full screen, while this video even in a teeny tiny window was a stuttering mess.
And since to be truly "free" and not be just another patent encumbered format like flash it will have to be HTML5+Theora, which has zero hardware acceleration, while H.264 already has hardware acceleration out for just about every kind of device, including this 4 year old netbox if I want to shell out $60 for a 4350AGP card, I just don't see HTML5 doing much.
For most folks Flash works, and that is all they care about.
As long as I can watch video without having to fire up my quad I'm happy, as the whole argument over patents doesn't affect me.
But if we have to toss every single core on the planet, as well as every netbook and netbox that didn't come with ION, just to watch video in HTML5 I am sensing a serious fail here.
ATM flash just works better on older hardware than HTML5, at least from what I'm seeing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472280</id>
	<title>Re:Misses the point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268584020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Standards I'll give you; but *not* cross-platform compatibility. Flash video is far more cross-platform compatible than HTML 5 video. Mozilla, Google and Safari can't all agree on a codec and the most popular browser out there (though slashdotters may be loathe to admit it) Internet Explorer doesn't support it at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Standards I 'll give you ; but * not * cross-platform compatibility .
Flash video is far more cross-platform compatible than HTML 5 video .
Mozilla , Google and Safari ca n't all agree on a codec and the most popular browser out there ( though slashdotters may be loathe to admit it ) Internet Explorer does n't support it at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Standards I'll give you; but *not* cross-platform compatibility.
Flash video is far more cross-platform compatible than HTML 5 video.
Mozilla, Google and Safari can't all agree on a codec and the most popular browser out there (though slashdotters may be loathe to admit it) Internet Explorer doesn't support it at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31484502</id>
	<title>Good Mac performance, okay, but...</title>
	<author>DaVince21</author>
	<datestamp>1268678880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>gollum123 also links to additional tests indicating that Flash "[1]does<br>not perform consistently worse on Mac than on Windows."</p></div><p>Well, guess what. Flash DOES perform consistently worse on Linux. Videos show immense tearing. Add some hardware acceleration and optimizations to the still very new HTML5 technology and it will beat out Flash no problem, I'd say.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>gollum123 also links to additional tests indicating that Flash " [ 1 ] doesnot perform consistently worse on Mac than on Windows .
" Well , guess what .
Flash DOES perform consistently worse on Linux .
Videos show immense tearing .
Add some hardware acceleration and optimizations to the still very new HTML5 technology and it will beat out Flash no problem , I 'd say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>gollum123 also links to additional tests indicating that Flash "[1]doesnot perform consistently worse on Mac than on Windows.
"Well, guess what.
Flash DOES perform consistently worse on Linux.
Videos show immense tearing.
Add some hardware acceleration and optimizations to the still very new HTML5 technology and it will beat out Flash no problem, I'd say.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31482058</id>
	<title>Re:Honestly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268668500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will you wear your tin foil hat when watching the HTML 5 videos?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will you wear your tin foil hat when watching the HTML 5 videos ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will you wear your tin foil hat when watching the HTML 5 videos?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31473910</id>
	<title>Read Someone who has the real facts.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268598300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Read this and get some truth to the matter, http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2010/03/11/fraud-science-used-to-promote-flash-performance-over-web-standards/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Read this and get some truth to the matter , http : //www.roughlydrafted.com/2010/03/11/fraud-science-used-to-promote-flash-performance-over-web-standards/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read this and get some truth to the matter, http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2010/03/11/fraud-science-used-to-promote-flash-performance-over-web-standards/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471008</id>
	<title>I have a great idea!</title>
	<author>Bazer</author>
	<datestamp>1268564280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's compare an established de facto standard which is a monstrosity beaten into submission over several years, to an experimental implementations of an unfinished standard. Oh, and lets leave out the fact that the new one is perfectly cross-platform and open while the old one isn't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's compare an established de facto standard which is a monstrosity beaten into submission over several years , to an experimental implementations of an unfinished standard .
Oh , and lets leave out the fact that the new one is perfectly cross-platform and open while the old one is n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's compare an established de facto standard which is a monstrosity beaten into submission over several years, to an experimental implementations of an unfinished standard.
Oh, and lets leave out the fact that the new one is perfectly cross-platform and open while the old one isn't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470868</id>
	<title>Flash aint so bad</title>
	<author>Spy Handler</author>
	<datestamp>1268562360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure it gets bashed on Slashdot for not being open source but so what? Slashdotters would love to see Ogg audio take over the world and MP3 die a painful death too, and I don't see that happening either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure it gets bashed on Slashdot for not being open source but so what ?
Slashdotters would love to see Ogg audio take over the world and MP3 die a painful death too , and I do n't see that happening either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure it gets bashed on Slashdot for not being open source but so what?
Slashdotters would love to see Ogg audio take over the world and MP3 die a painful death too, and I don't see that happening either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471930</id>
	<title>Anyone care to think he may be biased?</title>
	<author>hggs</author>
	<datestamp>1268579460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder why there isn't a Caveat Emptor stating the blog post is written by <a href="http://www.mikechambers.com/blog/about/" title="mikechambers.com" rel="nofollow"> Adobe's Principal Product Manager for developer relations for the Flash Platform </a> [mikechambers.com]?
<br>
--
<br>
Did I really say that?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder why there is n't a Caveat Emptor stating the blog post is written by Adobe 's Principal Product Manager for developer relations for the Flash Platform [ mikechambers.com ] ?
-- Did I really say that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder why there isn't a Caveat Emptor stating the blog post is written by  Adobe's Principal Product Manager for developer relations for the Flash Platform  [mikechambers.com]?
--

Did I really say that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471434</id>
	<title>Re:Flash aint so bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268572680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate Flash because it is mostly used as a horribly slow video player. Just compare the performance of any other video player to Flash and tell me with a straight face that Flash isn't crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate Flash because it is mostly used as a horribly slow video player .
Just compare the performance of any other video player to Flash and tell me with a straight face that Flash is n't crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate Flash because it is mostly used as a horribly slow video player.
Just compare the performance of any other video player to Flash and tell me with a straight face that Flash isn't crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470858</id>
	<title>Re:GPU acceleration and Opera</title>
	<author>pacificleo</author>
	<datestamp>1268562000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>When was the last time Performance and better quality became critical in  deciding which tech will be widely deployed ? Unless a biggie like  Google<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/MS<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/Apple back on HTML5 i don't see why it would replace incumbent standard<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:Flash . i have seen this movie before in  Betamax Vs VHS and I am sure that lot of folks on  slashdot are reading this discussion on IE 6 . comaprision  like these are geeky amusment at best .</htmltext>
<tokenext>When was the last time Performance and better quality became critical in deciding which tech will be widely deployed ?
Unless a biggie like Google /MS /Apple back on HTML5 i do n't see why it would replace incumbent standard : Flash .
i have seen this movie before in Betamax Vs VHS and I am sure that lot of folks on slashdot are reading this discussion on IE 6 .
comaprision like these are geeky amusment at best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When was the last time Performance and better quality became critical in  deciding which tech will be widely deployed ?
Unless a biggie like  Google /MS /Apple back on HTML5 i don't see why it would replace incumbent standard :Flash .
i have seen this movie before in  Betamax Vs VHS and I am sure that lot of folks on  slashdot are reading this discussion on IE 6 .
comaprision  like these are geeky amusment at best .</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472382</id>
	<title>Why can't Firefox and Opera just use the damn OS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268585100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The OS should be playing back video.<br>
<br>
Or are you telling me that those browsers have their own built-in image decoders? Their own font files? Their own font renderers? Their own GUI renderers? Their own mouse drivers? Etc, etc.<br>
<br>
It's the job of the OS to control the computer and display data. The web browser's job is to know which calls to make to the OS to display the web content.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The OS should be playing back video .
Or are you telling me that those browsers have their own built-in image decoders ?
Their own font files ?
Their own font renderers ?
Their own GUI renderers ?
Their own mouse drivers ?
Etc , etc .
It 's the job of the OS to control the computer and display data .
The web browser 's job is to know which calls to make to the OS to display the web content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The OS should be playing back video.
Or are you telling me that those browsers have their own built-in image decoders?
Their own font files?
Their own font renderers?
Their own GUI renderers?
Their own mouse drivers?
Etc, etc.
It's the job of the OS to control the computer and display data.
The web browser's job is to know which calls to make to the OS to display the web content.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472468</id>
	<title>Re:Check your sources...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268585820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>gollum123 also links to additional tests indicating that Flash "does not perform consistently worse on Mac than on Windows."</p><p>It's a Mac.  NOTHING performs consistently.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>gollum123 also links to additional tests indicating that Flash " does not perform consistently worse on Mac than on Windows .
" It 's a Mac .
NOTHING performs consistently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>gollum123 also links to additional tests indicating that Flash "does not perform consistently worse on Mac than on Windows.
"It's a Mac.
NOTHING performs consistently.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31474424</id>
	<title>so what?  (Data vs Executable)</title>
	<author>cas2000</author>
	<datestamp>1268559840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it's not just about performance.</p><p>there's one huge difference between HTML5 video and Flash.</p><p>a video file is just inert data.  it doesn't *DO* anything.</p><p>Flash is a program.  it could do *anything*.  flash has been used and abused for years to spy on users.</p><p>personally, i wouldn't care even if flash was 1000 times faster than HTML5 video.  I don't want random websites executing arbitrary code on MY computer, just because i happened to visit them.</p><p>in fact, i don't even want video files to start playing on a web page just because it's open in my browser.  I want nothing except a still image until i click on it.  and i want it to stop playing when i tell it to.</p><p>BTW, the article smells like astro-turfing from Adode...especially since it takes at face value Adobe's whinge about "being cut out of the loop" on the Mac.  if they weren't too lazy to program it, they could have accelerated video on the mac (and on linux) if they wanted to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's not just about performance.there 's one huge difference between HTML5 video and Flash.a video file is just inert data .
it does n't * DO * anything.Flash is a program .
it could do * anything * .
flash has been used and abused for years to spy on users.personally , i would n't care even if flash was 1000 times faster than HTML5 video .
I do n't want random websites executing arbitrary code on MY computer , just because i happened to visit them.in fact , i do n't even want video files to start playing on a web page just because it 's open in my browser .
I want nothing except a still image until i click on it .
and i want it to stop playing when i tell it to.BTW , the article smells like astro-turfing from Adode...especially since it takes at face value Adobe 's whinge about " being cut out of the loop " on the Mac .
if they were n't too lazy to program it , they could have accelerated video on the mac ( and on linux ) if they wanted to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's not just about performance.there's one huge difference between HTML5 video and Flash.a video file is just inert data.
it doesn't *DO* anything.Flash is a program.
it could do *anything*.
flash has been used and abused for years to spy on users.personally, i wouldn't care even if flash was 1000 times faster than HTML5 video.
I don't want random websites executing arbitrary code on MY computer, just because i happened to visit them.in fact, i don't even want video files to start playing on a web page just because it's open in my browser.
I want nothing except a still image until i click on it.
and i want it to stop playing when i tell it to.BTW, the article smells like astro-turfing from Adode...especially since it takes at face value Adobe's whinge about "being cut out of the loop" on the Mac.
if they weren't too lazy to program it, they could have accelerated video on the mac (and on linux) if they wanted to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472082</id>
	<title>Ozer's Original Article</title>
	<author>randyjparker</author>
	<datestamp>1268581800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Jan has a lot of worthwhile detail and commenting in his article:
<a href="http://www.streaminglearningcenter.com/articles/flash-player-cpu-hog-or-hot-tamale-it-depends-.html" title="streamingl...center.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.streaminglearningcenter.com/articles/flash-player-cpu-hog-or-hot-tamale-it-depends-.html</a> [streamingl...center.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Jan has a lot of worthwhile detail and commenting in his article : http : //www.streaminglearningcenter.com/articles/flash-player-cpu-hog-or-hot-tamale-it-depends-.html [ streamingl...center.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jan has a lot of worthwhile detail and commenting in his article:
http://www.streaminglearningcenter.com/articles/flash-player-cpu-hog-or-hot-tamale-it-depends-.html [streamingl...center.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472212</id>
	<title>Efficiency isn't everything</title>
	<author>wisnoskij</author>
	<datestamp>1268583180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Efficiency isn't everything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Efficiency is n't everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Efficiency isn't everything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471070</id>
	<title>Spelling</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268565660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sceptical - another word the Americans can't spell<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sceptical - another word the Americans ca n't spell : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sceptical - another word the Americans can't spell :(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471648</id>
	<title>Flash is what, 10 years old? HTML 5 is barely out</title>
	<author>PinchDuck</author>
	<datestamp>1268575740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So of course Flash will do some things better. HTML5 will come along very quickly, however, because of the number of people (consumers and companies) that hate Flash. Adobe dug this hole for themselves with their arrogant attitudes and sky-high pricing. Now that the rest of the industry has an alternative to rally around, it will soon be a new world. It won't be flash-free, but Adobe will have to clean up it's act to compete.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So of course Flash will do some things better .
HTML5 will come along very quickly , however , because of the number of people ( consumers and companies ) that hate Flash .
Adobe dug this hole for themselves with their arrogant attitudes and sky-high pricing .
Now that the rest of the industry has an alternative to rally around , it will soon be a new world .
It wo n't be flash-free , but Adobe will have to clean up it 's act to compete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So of course Flash will do some things better.
HTML5 will come along very quickly, however, because of the number of people (consumers and companies) that hate Flash.
Adobe dug this hole for themselves with their arrogant attitudes and sky-high pricing.
Now that the rest of the industry has an alternative to rally around, it will soon be a new world.
It won't be flash-free, but Adobe will have to clean up it's act to compete.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470926</id>
	<title>html5 is a clear winner</title>
	<author>roman\_mir</author>
	<datestamp>1268562900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HTML 5 is a clear winner by virtue of not being Adobe Flash or any other proprietary application but an open standard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HTML 5 is a clear winner by virtue of not being Adobe Flash or any other proprietary application but an open standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HTML 5 is a clear winner by virtue of not being Adobe Flash or any other proprietary application but an open standard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31479778</id>
	<title>Most important factor</title>
	<author>dugeen</author>
	<datestamp>1268651880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>HTML5 could be 75\% slower than Flash for all I care, if it meant I didn't have to install tons of Adobe crapware onto my PC just to view web video.</htmltext>
<tokenext>HTML5 could be 75 \ % slower than Flash for all I care , if it meant I did n't have to install tons of Adobe crapware onto my PC just to view web video .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HTML5 could be 75\% slower than Flash for all I care, if it meant I didn't have to install tons of Adobe crapware onto my PC just to view web video.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31473558</id>
	<title>Simple math</title>
	<author>Zorkon</author>
	<datestamp>1268595360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HTML5 = non-proprietary.<br>Flash = proprietary.</p><p>HTML5 &gt; Flash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HTML5 = non-proprietary.Flash = proprietary.HTML5 &gt; Flash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HTML5 = non-proprietary.Flash = proprietary.HTML5 &gt; Flash.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470856</id>
	<title>Flash DOES run slower on Mac</title>
	<author>ottawanker</author>
	<datestamp>1268562000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From what I can tell by reading the article that says that 'Flash "does not perform consistently worse on Mac', what they really mean is that not only does Flash run slower on Mac, but Safari is also coded really poorly for Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I can tell by reading the article that says that 'Flash " does not perform consistently worse on Mac ' , what they really mean is that not only does Flash run slower on Mac , but Safari is also coded really poorly for Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I can tell by reading the article that says that 'Flash "does not perform consistently worse on Mac', what they really mean is that not only does Flash run slower on Mac, but Safari is also coded really poorly for Windows.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31474410</id>
	<title>Re:Misses the point</title>
	<author>Dr Herbert West</author>
	<datestamp>1268559720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Performance is rather secondary. This is about standards and cross-platform compatibility. Flash is an atrocity in this regard, and the earlier it gets tossed out on the trash heap of computing history, the better.</p></div><p>How did you get modded up for that comment?
The main (some would say only) strength flash has is its consistent functionality across all platforms/browsers-- that is, if it runs at all, it runs exactly the same everywhere.
Maybe you like writing a million different sniffer codes and a jillion javascript tweaks to make your projects run/display consistently when moving from windows to mac to IE to Mozilla to whatever. I certainly don't.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Performance is rather secondary .
This is about standards and cross-platform compatibility .
Flash is an atrocity in this regard , and the earlier it gets tossed out on the trash heap of computing history , the better.How did you get modded up for that comment ?
The main ( some would say only ) strength flash has is its consistent functionality across all platforms/browsers-- that is , if it runs at all , it runs exactly the same everywhere .
Maybe you like writing a million different sniffer codes and a jillion javascript tweaks to make your projects run/display consistently when moving from windows to mac to IE to Mozilla to whatever .
I certainly do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Performance is rather secondary.
This is about standards and cross-platform compatibility.
Flash is an atrocity in this regard, and the earlier it gets tossed out on the trash heap of computing history, the better.How did you get modded up for that comment?
The main (some would say only) strength flash has is its consistent functionality across all platforms/browsers-- that is, if it runs at all, it runs exactly the same everywhere.
Maybe you like writing a million different sniffer codes and a jillion javascript tweaks to make your projects run/display consistently when moving from windows to mac to IE to Mozilla to whatever.
I certainly don't.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470996</id>
	<title>This is not the right angle to look into it</title>
	<author>iampiti</author>
	<datestamp>1268563980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I believe this is not the most important reason why one or the other will be selected. The website makers are the ones who decide which technology will be used to play video any I believe many of them don't like many things that HTML5 offers:
<ul>
<li>The url of the video is right there facilitating the download of the video and hence potentially reducing the number of future visits to the site. With flash you can at least try to obscure the real url of the file (whether this works that's another debate)</li><li>The browser and not the website owner controls how the video displays, the interface shown to the user</li><li>DRM: I don't think you can do this with HTML5 video, you certainly can with Flash</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe this is not the most important reason why one or the other will be selected .
The website makers are the ones who decide which technology will be used to play video any I believe many of them do n't like many things that HTML5 offers : The url of the video is right there facilitating the download of the video and hence potentially reducing the number of future visits to the site .
With flash you can at least try to obscure the real url of the file ( whether this works that 's another debate ) The browser and not the website owner controls how the video displays , the interface shown to the userDRM : I do n't think you can do this with HTML5 video , you certainly can with Flash</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe this is not the most important reason why one or the other will be selected.
The website makers are the ones who decide which technology will be used to play video any I believe many of them don't like many things that HTML5 offers:

The url of the video is right there facilitating the download of the video and hence potentially reducing the number of future visits to the site.
With flash you can at least try to obscure the real url of the file (whether this works that's another debate)The browser and not the website owner controls how the video displays, the interface shown to the userDRM: I don't think you can do this with HTML5 video, you certainly can with Flash</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472430</id>
	<title>Re:html5 is a clear winner</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268585520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Proprietary isn't inherently wrong, but if something is going to be a standard, proprietary faces a huge disadvantage. If it isn't available on all platforms, or imminently available, then it isn't a standard. Things like Flash can't seriously be considered "standard" as the availability beyond a small number of platforms is basically nonexistent. Compare that with a more legitimate standard like the ones governing HTTP or FTP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Proprietary is n't inherently wrong , but if something is going to be a standard , proprietary faces a huge disadvantage .
If it is n't available on all platforms , or imminently available , then it is n't a standard .
Things like Flash ca n't seriously be considered " standard " as the availability beyond a small number of platforms is basically nonexistent .
Compare that with a more legitimate standard like the ones governing HTTP or FTP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Proprietary isn't inherently wrong, but if something is going to be a standard, proprietary faces a huge disadvantage.
If it isn't available on all platforms, or imminently available, then it isn't a standard.
Things like Flash can't seriously be considered "standard" as the availability beyond a small number of platforms is basically nonexistent.
Compare that with a more legitimate standard like the ones governing HTTP or FTP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471144</id>
	<title>Re:Flash aint so bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268567400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The important thing here is that HTML5 is actually a viable &amp; good alternative. It will eventually be as capable as Flash and it won't be a proprietary standard. This is a possibly win-win scenario.</p><p>We all need to put up with the minor inconvenience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The important thing here is that HTML5 is actually a viable &amp; good alternative .
It will eventually be as capable as Flash and it wo n't be a proprietary standard .
This is a possibly win-win scenario.We all need to put up with the minor inconvenience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The important thing here is that HTML5 is actually a viable &amp; good alternative.
It will eventually be as capable as Flash and it won't be a proprietary standard.
This is a possibly win-win scenario.We all need to put up with the minor inconvenience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471136</id>
	<title>Some perspective, people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268567220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People tend to forget what Flash is. It's a fucking browser plugin. A metaphor from the internet bronze age.</p><p>Other browser plugins:</p><p>ActiveX<br>Java Applets<br>Silverlight<br>Bonzi Buddy</p><p>If your idea of providing a web experience necessitates installation of 3rd party, buggy and half-baked plugins then you fail as a developer and as a human being.</p><p>I'll admit, HTML5 media <a href="http://jilion.com/sublime/video" title="jilion.com" rel="nofollow">experience</a> [jilion.com] is kinda lacking at this point and there are reasons for that. a) the infighting between h.264 camp and Theora camp has resulted in a paralysis where non-ideologues don't know which way to lean. and b) the next generation tools aren't yet available for the web developers so they could start serving their content for the post-Flash era. Every html5 video implementation I've seen is very barebones and not as feature rich as Flash.</p><p>Of course, this could change very soon and above 2 points are very fixable. To quote JFK on this matter:</p><blockquote><div><p>We choose to switch to HTML5... (interrupted by applause) in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too. <i>[followed by  stuff about Adobe being lazy]</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>My point is, if you defend Flash you might as well defend Bonzai Buddy. I don't care if the next version of Flash gives free handjobs - I want it out of my fucking browser.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People tend to forget what Flash is .
It 's a fucking browser plugin .
A metaphor from the internet bronze age.Other browser plugins : ActiveXJava AppletsSilverlightBonzi BuddyIf your idea of providing a web experience necessitates installation of 3rd party , buggy and half-baked plugins then you fail as a developer and as a human being.I 'll admit , HTML5 media experience [ jilion.com ] is kinda lacking at this point and there are reasons for that .
a ) the infighting between h.264 camp and Theora camp has resulted in a paralysis where non-ideologues do n't know which way to lean .
and b ) the next generation tools are n't yet available for the web developers so they could start serving their content for the post-Flash era .
Every html5 video implementation I 've seen is very barebones and not as feature rich as Flash.Of course , this could change very soon and above 2 points are very fixable .
To quote JFK on this matter : We choose to switch to HTML5... ( interrupted by applause ) in this decade and do the other things , not because they are easy , but because they are hard , because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills , because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept , one we are unwilling to postpone , and one which we intend to win , and the others , too .
[ followed by stuff about Adobe being lazy ] My point is , if you defend Flash you might as well defend Bonzai Buddy .
I do n't care if the next version of Flash gives free handjobs - I want it out of my fucking browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People tend to forget what Flash is.
It's a fucking browser plugin.
A metaphor from the internet bronze age.Other browser plugins:ActiveXJava AppletsSilverlightBonzi BuddyIf your idea of providing a web experience necessitates installation of 3rd party, buggy and half-baked plugins then you fail as a developer and as a human being.I'll admit, HTML5 media experience [jilion.com] is kinda lacking at this point and there are reasons for that.
a) the infighting between h.264 camp and Theora camp has resulted in a paralysis where non-ideologues don't know which way to lean.
and b) the next generation tools aren't yet available for the web developers so they could start serving their content for the post-Flash era.
Every html5 video implementation I've seen is very barebones and not as feature rich as Flash.Of course, this could change very soon and above 2 points are very fixable.
To quote JFK on this matter:We choose to switch to HTML5... (interrupted by applause) in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.
[followed by  stuff about Adobe being lazy] My point is, if you defend Flash you might as well defend Bonzai Buddy.
I don't care if the next version of Flash gives free handjobs - I want it out of my fucking browser.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471038</id>
	<title>Retro machines</title>
	<author>stimpleton</author>
	<datestamp>1268564940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>By saying "PC and MAC", TFA disregards handheld and small devices. These may be dominant players in the medium term(till they are as powerful as PC's and Macs). HTML5 may have an edge, especially with the iPad attitude of limited Flash support</htmltext>
<tokenext>By saying " PC and MAC " , TFA disregards handheld and small devices .
These may be dominant players in the medium term ( till they are as powerful as PC 's and Macs ) .
HTML5 may have an edge , especially with the iPad attitude of limited Flash support</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By saying "PC and MAC", TFA disregards handheld and small devices.
These may be dominant players in the medium term(till they are as powerful as PC's and Macs).
HTML5 may have an edge, especially with the iPad attitude of limited Flash support</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472902</id>
	<title>Re:html5 is a clear winner</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268589600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Moreover, proprietary is inherently wrong when concerning such important pieces of infrastructure that we rely on for our freedoms as the Internet.</p><p>Inherently.</p><p>Proof is simple, look at this<nobr> <wbr></nobr><a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/03/14/1321251" title="slashdot.org">/. story about Chavez wanting to limit freedoms of Venezuela Internet users.</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>He is not doing it because it is just the Internet, he is doing it because Internet is the Greatest tool for freedoms of general public and it threatens his regime.  I laugh at Sean Penn, who says that <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/11/sean-penn-hugo-chavez-venezuela" title="guardian.co.uk">any journalist who calls Chavez a dictator should be jailed.</a> [guardian.co.uk]  I laugh at him, but it is scary what his views are, isn't it?</p><p>Why is this story relevant?  Because Chavez wants to control the Internet and the best way to go to control such an environment is to lock down the tools that make the Internet work.  The open protocols, the open standards, the open applications that make the Internet chug away, those are the reasons why the Internet is still open and it is what it is.</p><p>If all protocols and tools were not open but proprietary, how ridiculously easy would it have been for such control freaks and dictators (too bad I am not a journalist, I would have had fun with Penn there), how easy it would have been to stop the Internet cold.  Killing something that is proprietary is ridiculously easy.</p><p>Open is the way to go, even if majority does not realize it, openness is the key.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Moreover , proprietary is inherently wrong when concerning such important pieces of infrastructure that we rely on for our freedoms as the Internet.Inherently.Proof is simple , look at this / .
story about Chavez wanting to limit freedoms of Venezuela Internet users .
[ slashdot.org ] He is not doing it because it is just the Internet , he is doing it because Internet is the Greatest tool for freedoms of general public and it threatens his regime .
I laugh at Sean Penn , who says that any journalist who calls Chavez a dictator should be jailed .
[ guardian.co.uk ] I laugh at him , but it is scary what his views are , is n't it ? Why is this story relevant ?
Because Chavez wants to control the Internet and the best way to go to control such an environment is to lock down the tools that make the Internet work .
The open protocols , the open standards , the open applications that make the Internet chug away , those are the reasons why the Internet is still open and it is what it is.If all protocols and tools were not open but proprietary , how ridiculously easy would it have been for such control freaks and dictators ( too bad I am not a journalist , I would have had fun with Penn there ) , how easy it would have been to stop the Internet cold .
Killing something that is proprietary is ridiculously easy.Open is the way to go , even if majority does not realize it , openness is the key .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Moreover, proprietary is inherently wrong when concerning such important pieces of infrastructure that we rely on for our freedoms as the Internet.Inherently.Proof is simple, look at this /.
story about Chavez wanting to limit freedoms of Venezuela Internet users.
[slashdot.org]He is not doing it because it is just the Internet, he is doing it because Internet is the Greatest tool for freedoms of general public and it threatens his regime.
I laugh at Sean Penn, who says that any journalist who calls Chavez a dictator should be jailed.
[guardian.co.uk]  I laugh at him, but it is scary what his views are, isn't it?Why is this story relevant?
Because Chavez wants to control the Internet and the best way to go to control such an environment is to lock down the tools that make the Internet work.
The open protocols, the open standards, the open applications that make the Internet chug away, those are the reasons why the Internet is still open and it is what it is.If all protocols and tools were not open but proprietary, how ridiculously easy would it have been for such control freaks and dictators (too bad I am not a journalist, I would have had fun with Penn there), how easy it would have been to stop the Internet cold.
Killing something that is proprietary is ridiculously easy.Open is the way to go, even if majority does not realize it, openness is the key.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471298</id>
	<title>http://www.gozlempnomatik.com</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268570100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>pn&#246;matik</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>pn   matik</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pnömatik</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31474018</id>
	<title>Re:I've yet to see HTML5 video work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268599560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am happy to see that this worked on Seamonkey 2.0.3 on Fedora 12, rather than complaining that it wasn't Firefox or something.  I can't say how many websites I have cursed because they whitelist certain browsers, rather than testing features if they really must be doing something non-standard or unconventional.</p><p>I also hope someone will make sure that Firefox and Seamonkey on Linux can hand video-tag streams off to mplayer to use its insane set of codecs and display drivers, rather than forcing users to stick their heads in the sand along with the Mozilla foundation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am happy to see that this worked on Seamonkey 2.0.3 on Fedora 12 , rather than complaining that it was n't Firefox or something .
I ca n't say how many websites I have cursed because they whitelist certain browsers , rather than testing features if they really must be doing something non-standard or unconventional.I also hope someone will make sure that Firefox and Seamonkey on Linux can hand video-tag streams off to mplayer to use its insane set of codecs and display drivers , rather than forcing users to stick their heads in the sand along with the Mozilla foundation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am happy to see that this worked on Seamonkey 2.0.3 on Fedora 12, rather than complaining that it wasn't Firefox or something.
I can't say how many websites I have cursed because they whitelist certain browsers, rather than testing features if they really must be doing something non-standard or unconventional.I also hope someone will make sure that Firefox and Seamonkey on Linux can hand video-tag streams off to mplayer to use its insane set of codecs and display drivers, rather than forcing users to stick their heads in the sand along with the Mozilla foundation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471202</id>
	<title>The biggest tell</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268568480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>
With Safari on the Mac, Flash did show a significantly higher CPU utilization, but Ozer attributes that to Apple's use of GPU hardware acceleration with HTML5.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...

Adobe has added hardware acceleration with Flash Player 10.1, and Ozer argues that if Jobs were to embrace such a setup, CPU hogging would no longer be a problem. Of course, that still leaves the buggy bit. And the security bit.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
So the answer is to let some bug-ridden security-mess proprietary plug-in have direct access to the hardware. Brilliant!
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>With Safari on the Mac , Flash did show a significantly higher CPU utilization , but Ozer attributes that to Apple 's use of GPU hardware acceleration with HTML5 .
.. . Adobe has added hardware acceleration with Flash Player 10.1 , and Ozer argues that if Jobs were to embrace such a setup , CPU hogging would no longer be a problem .
Of course , that still leaves the buggy bit .
And the security bit .
So the answer is to let some bug-ridden security-mess proprietary plug-in have direct access to the hardware .
Brilliant !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
With Safari on the Mac, Flash did show a significantly higher CPU utilization, but Ozer attributes that to Apple's use of GPU hardware acceleration with HTML5.
...

Adobe has added hardware acceleration with Flash Player 10.1, and Ozer argues that if Jobs were to embrace such a setup, CPU hogging would no longer be a problem.
Of course, that still leaves the buggy bit.
And the security bit.
So the answer is to let some bug-ridden security-mess proprietary plug-in have direct access to the hardware.
Brilliant!

	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471014</id>
	<title>Let's wait and see</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268564340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not really fair to compare a technology that is still being developed to others that are very well established.  The big benefit of HTML5 is it's non-proprietary nature.  Once the standard is adopted and applications are built around it these comparisons will look very different.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not really fair to compare a technology that is still being developed to others that are very well established .
The big benefit of HTML5 is it 's non-proprietary nature .
Once the standard is adopted and applications are built around it these comparisons will look very different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not really fair to compare a technology that is still being developed to others that are very well established.
The big benefit of HTML5 is it's non-proprietary nature.
Once the standard is adopted and applications are built around it these comparisons will look very different.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470948</id>
	<title>Halp! I are teh stupidness!</title>
	<author>zmollusc</author>
	<datestamp>1268563200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could someone please tell me what the point of Flash video(or html 5 video) is? I can watch mpeg2 films on clonky old hardware (remember multimedia PCs?) that won't play Flash, so is it just that flv is a smaller filesize? If so, how much smaller? Is it that flv renderers scale better than mpeg2?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could someone please tell me what the point of Flash video ( or html 5 video ) is ?
I can watch mpeg2 films on clonky old hardware ( remember multimedia PCs ?
) that wo n't play Flash , so is it just that flv is a smaller filesize ?
If so , how much smaller ?
Is it that flv renderers scale better than mpeg2 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could someone please tell me what the point of Flash video(or html 5 video) is?
I can watch mpeg2 films on clonky old hardware (remember multimedia PCs?
) that won't play Flash, so is it just that flv is a smaller filesize?
If so, how much smaller?
Is it that flv renderers scale better than mpeg2?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470888</id>
	<title>Rome wasn't built in a day!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268562480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HTML5 and all Web browsers still have a long way to go, but it is a superior standard based on its openness.  A small initial performance hit is a small price to pay to help bring sanity to Internet multimedia!</p><p>(Signed:  Alex Libman's sock-puppet.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HTML5 and all Web browsers still have a long way to go , but it is a superior standard based on its openness .
A small initial performance hit is a small price to pay to help bring sanity to Internet multimedia !
( Signed : Alex Libman 's sock-puppet .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HTML5 and all Web browsers still have a long way to go, but it is a superior standard based on its openness.
A small initial performance hit is a small price to pay to help bring sanity to Internet multimedia!
(Signed:  Alex Libman's sock-puppet.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470766</id>
	<title>GPU acceleration and Opera</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268560980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The second test seems to forget that Flash added GPU acceleration in Windows, which <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/17/adobes-flash-player-10-1-beta-gpu-acceleration-tested-document/" title="engadget.com">dramatically drops CPU usage</a> [engadget.com]. It's not even small amount, it's 60\%-&gt;12\% with YouTube 720p video and most likely even more with 1080p. They've been working a lot with NVIDIA on it, which means more bad news for HTML5. I also installed those <a href="http://www.nvidia.com/object/adobe\_flashplayer\_plus\_nvidia.html" title="nvidia.com">new NVIDIA drivers and newest Flash beta and full screen video is considerably smoother.</a> [nvidia.com]</p><p>And where's Opera in this test? They added HTML5 support in 10.5 final too and their whole drawing engine will be hardware accelerated, with websites also. Their canvas implementation is also faster than with any other browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The second test seems to forget that Flash added GPU acceleration in Windows , which dramatically drops CPU usage [ engadget.com ] .
It 's not even small amount , it 's 60 \ % - &gt; 12 \ % with YouTube 720p video and most likely even more with 1080p .
They 've been working a lot with NVIDIA on it , which means more bad news for HTML5 .
I also installed those new NVIDIA drivers and newest Flash beta and full screen video is considerably smoother .
[ nvidia.com ] And where 's Opera in this test ?
They added HTML5 support in 10.5 final too and their whole drawing engine will be hardware accelerated , with websites also .
Their canvas implementation is also faster than with any other browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The second test seems to forget that Flash added GPU acceleration in Windows, which dramatically drops CPU usage [engadget.com].
It's not even small amount, it's 60\%-&gt;12\% with YouTube 720p video and most likely even more with 1080p.
They've been working a lot with NVIDIA on it, which means more bad news for HTML5.
I also installed those new NVIDIA drivers and newest Flash beta and full screen video is considerably smoother.
[nvidia.com]And where's Opera in this test?
They added HTML5 support in 10.5 final too and their whole drawing engine will be hardware accelerated, with websites also.
Their canvas implementation is also faster than with any other browser.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471100</id>
	<title>Misses the point</title>
	<author>gweihir</author>
	<datestamp>1268566200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Performance is rather secondary. This is about standards and cross-platform compatibility. Flash is an atrocity in this regard, and the earlier it gets tossed out on the trash heap of computing history, the better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Performance is rather secondary .
This is about standards and cross-platform compatibility .
Flash is an atrocity in this regard , and the earlier it gets tossed out on the trash heap of computing history , the better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Performance is rather secondary.
This is about standards and cross-platform compatibility.
Flash is an atrocity in this regard, and the earlier it gets tossed out on the trash heap of computing history, the better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472068</id>
	<title>Re:GPU acceleration in MacOS</title>
	<author>mdarksbane</author>
	<datestamp>1268581500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sounds a little fishy to me, too, considering how many hooks the OS X API's have for GPU accelerated... well, anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds a little fishy to me , too , considering how many hooks the OS X API 's have for GPU accelerated... well , anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds a little fishy to me, too, considering how many hooks the OS X API's have for GPU accelerated... well, anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472058</id>
	<title>Re:Let's wait and see</title>
	<author>ErikZ</author>
	<datestamp>1268581320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, a more correct comparison would be to use the technologies and software from 15 years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , a more correct comparison would be to use the technologies and software from 15 years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, a more correct comparison would be to use the technologies and software from 15 years ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471674</id>
	<title>Fud fud and more fud.</title>
	<author>bl8n8r</author>
	<datestamp>1268575980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having a platform based/built on open standards is way more important than having some monetarily driven format underpinning everything we develop for.  I don't care about efficiency; I care about being able to use the internet without having it dictated to me that I need to use a Mac, or Vista, or a special browser feature some asshat wrote that I need for my banking.  The world doesn't need another microsoft.  The world doesn't need another swiss-cheese plugin controlling the web so shaddap about it already.</p><p>Even if HTML5 "efficiency" sucks now, give it 6 months; it will improve.  Open source evolves into a superior product because of the ability to innovate with legal freedom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having a platform based/built on open standards is way more important than having some monetarily driven format underpinning everything we develop for .
I do n't care about efficiency ; I care about being able to use the internet without having it dictated to me that I need to use a Mac , or Vista , or a special browser feature some asshat wrote that I need for my banking .
The world does n't need another microsoft .
The world does n't need another swiss-cheese plugin controlling the web so shaddap about it already.Even if HTML5 " efficiency " sucks now , give it 6 months ; it will improve .
Open source evolves into a superior product because of the ability to innovate with legal freedom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having a platform based/built on open standards is way more important than having some monetarily driven format underpinning everything we develop for.
I don't care about efficiency; I care about being able to use the internet without having it dictated to me that I need to use a Mac, or Vista, or a special browser feature some asshat wrote that I need for my banking.
The world doesn't need another microsoft.
The world doesn't need another swiss-cheese plugin controlling the web so shaddap about it already.Even if HTML5 "efficiency" sucks now, give it 6 months; it will improve.
Open source evolves into a superior product because of the ability to innovate with legal freedom.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471874</id>
	<title>GPU acceleration in MacOS</title>
	<author>blueworm</author>
	<datestamp>1268578680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Engadget stub article states that Adobe is "cut out of the loop" of GPU acceleration on the Mac platform, and as evidence links to three other articles (also Engadget):</p><p><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/28/adobe-on-flash-and-the-ipad-apple-is-continuing-to-impose-rest/" title="engadget.com">http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/28/adobe-on-flash-and-the-ipad-apple-is-continuing-to-impose-rest/</a> [engadget.com]<br><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/29/adobe-ups-passive-aggressive-stance-on-ipad-while-apple-promo-f/" title="engadget.com">http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/29/adobe-ups-passive-aggressive-stance-on-ipad-while-apple-promo-f/</a> [engadget.com]<br><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/10/adobe-got-7-million-iphone-and-ipod-touch-download-requests-for/" title="engadget.com">http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/10/adobe-got-7-million-iphone-and-ipod-touch-download-requests-for/</a> [engadget.com]</p><p>All of which seem to detail the battle to get Flash on Apple's mobiles, and not a battle for GPU acceleration on MacOS. It would seem to me that if Flash isn't GPU accelerated on MacOS now, that they could take advantage of OpenGL to do so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Engadget stub article states that Adobe is " cut out of the loop " of GPU acceleration on the Mac platform , and as evidence links to three other articles ( also Engadget ) : http : //www.engadget.com/2010/01/28/adobe-on-flash-and-the-ipad-apple-is-continuing-to-impose-rest/ [ engadget.com ] http : //www.engadget.com/2010/01/29/adobe-ups-passive-aggressive-stance-on-ipad-while-apple-promo-f/ [ engadget.com ] http : //www.engadget.com/2010/02/10/adobe-got-7-million-iphone-and-ipod-touch-download-requests-for/ [ engadget.com ] All of which seem to detail the battle to get Flash on Apple 's mobiles , and not a battle for GPU acceleration on MacOS .
It would seem to me that if Flash is n't GPU accelerated on MacOS now , that they could take advantage of OpenGL to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Engadget stub article states that Adobe is "cut out of the loop" of GPU acceleration on the Mac platform, and as evidence links to three other articles (also Engadget):http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/28/adobe-on-flash-and-the-ipad-apple-is-continuing-to-impose-rest/ [engadget.com]http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/29/adobe-ups-passive-aggressive-stance-on-ipad-while-apple-promo-f/ [engadget.com]http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/10/adobe-got-7-million-iphone-and-ipod-touch-download-requests-for/ [engadget.com]All of which seem to detail the battle to get Flash on Apple's mobiles, and not a battle for GPU acceleration on MacOS.
It would seem to me that if Flash isn't GPU accelerated on MacOS now, that they could take advantage of OpenGL to do so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472698</id>
	<title>Re:Check your sources...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268587920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I seem to have read this differently than you. I read this as implying a comparison between the Mac and Windows platforms when running Flash, considering what the linked article was about. It's possible that between these two platforms, the performance is about the same. It's pretty well known that on Linux, Flash performance is actually quite bad. I'm not sure how you can read a bias there, unless you thought Adobe was implying Flash was consistently not worse than HTML5 video (which is what I suspect).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I seem to have read this differently than you .
I read this as implying a comparison between the Mac and Windows platforms when running Flash , considering what the linked article was about .
It 's possible that between these two platforms , the performance is about the same .
It 's pretty well known that on Linux , Flash performance is actually quite bad .
I 'm not sure how you can read a bias there , unless you thought Adobe was implying Flash was consistently not worse than HTML5 video ( which is what I suspect ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I seem to have read this differently than you.
I read this as implying a comparison between the Mac and Windows platforms when running Flash, considering what the linked article was about.
It's possible that between these two platforms, the performance is about the same.
It's pretty well known that on Linux, Flash performance is actually quite bad.
I'm not sure how you can read a bias there, unless you thought Adobe was implying Flash was consistently not worse than HTML5 video (which is what I suspect).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470994</id>
	<title>Check your sources...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268563980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>gollum123 also links to additional tests indicating that Flash "does not perform consistently worse on Mac than on Windows."</p></div><p>Yes, tests provided by... Mike Chambers of <b>Adobe</b>. I'm sure that they're completely impartial.</p><p>When I turn on HTML5 video support at YouTube, the exact same clip in the exact same browser on the exact same OS on the exact same <b>session</b> runs at a third of the CPU power. Sure, it's an anecdote - and one that's been observed by hundreds if not thousands of others, consistently over the years. But according to Adobe, nope, no problems at all. Emperor's clothes look really chic.</p><p>Fuck off, Adobe. You had years to improve your damn plugin, and we'll all be better off when it and its horrid performance and security record are no more.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>gollum123 also links to additional tests indicating that Flash " does not perform consistently worse on Mac than on Windows .
" Yes , tests provided by... Mike Chambers of Adobe .
I 'm sure that they 're completely impartial.When I turn on HTML5 video support at YouTube , the exact same clip in the exact same browser on the exact same OS on the exact same session runs at a third of the CPU power .
Sure , it 's an anecdote - and one that 's been observed by hundreds if not thousands of others , consistently over the years .
But according to Adobe , nope , no problems at all .
Emperor 's clothes look really chic.Fuck off , Adobe .
You had years to improve your damn plugin , and we 'll all be better off when it and its horrid performance and security record are no more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>gollum123 also links to additional tests indicating that Flash "does not perform consistently worse on Mac than on Windows.
"Yes, tests provided by... Mike Chambers of Adobe.
I'm sure that they're completely impartial.When I turn on HTML5 video support at YouTube, the exact same clip in the exact same browser on the exact same OS on the exact same session runs at a third of the CPU power.
Sure, it's an anecdote - and one that's been observed by hundreds if not thousands of others, consistently over the years.
But according to Adobe, nope, no problems at all.
Emperor's clothes look really chic.Fuck off, Adobe.
You had years to improve your damn plugin, and we'll all be better off when it and its horrid performance and security record are no more.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471244</id>
	<title>Flash sites are already broken ... for the blind.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268569080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try having text-to-speech read you a flash-based site some time.  So much for ADA compliance on the web.  HTML5 will encourage sites to fix this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try having text-to-speech read you a flash-based site some time .
So much for ADA compliance on the web .
HTML5 will encourage sites to fix this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try having text-to-speech read you a flash-based site some time.
So much for ADA compliance on the web.
HTML5 will encourage sites to fix this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472146</id>
	<title>Biased test?</title>
	<author>QuietLagoon</author>
	<datestamp>1268582460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are <a href="http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2010/03/11/fraud-science-used-to-promote-flash-performance-over-web-standards/" title="roughlydrafted.com">some</a> [roughlydrafted.com] who feel that a Flash consultant, author and developer may not be the most unbiased person to do a comparison test.<p>.</p><p>

<i>A report purporting to vindicate the performance of Adobes Flash plugin in comparison to open standards broke through the weak editorial barriers of the tech community yesterday. Its wrong, heres why.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</i></p><p><i>
The report was created by Jan Ozer, a proponent of Flash who makes his living selling books and seminars about Adobes technologies. The original article is even interrupted by an advertisement promoting Ozers Streaming Production and Flash Delivery Workshop.
</i></p><p><i>
After noting Ozers bias, one site commenting on it wrote, we dont think that [his bias] has any effect on the test outcomes [his report presented].
</i></p><p><i>
The problem wasnt that Ozer faked data to promote Flash; some of his findings actually indicate that even the early beta implementations of HTML5 beat the latest version of Flash in video playback tests. The real issue is that Ozer framed the debate around an absurd premise to shift the conversation from real issues to contrived garbage.
</i></p><p><i>
A press release of fake science
</i></p><p><i>
Coverage of Ozers press release uncritically reported his findings that certain browsers were no better (or at least not much better) at rendering video from YouTube via Googles experimental HTML5/H.264 site than via the standard Flash version of YouTube.
</i></p><p><i>
Ozer detailed only the reported CPU Utilization for his test Mac running Safari, Chrome, and Firefox browsers, and a PC running the same three browsers in addition to Internet Explorer. He compared the performance of Flash 10 with the latest Flash 10.1, and contrasted HTML5 playback on browsers that supported that as an alternative to Flash, not too subtly suggesting that HTML5 and H.264 were riddled with problems that inspire fear, uncertainty and doubt, while Flash simply works everywhere.
</i></p><p><i>
However, his results made no comment on the visual quality of Googles Flash vs raw H.264 implementations. Previous tests I performed indicate that Googles beta version of YouTube running HTML5 delivers raw H.264 video with remarkably better picture equality compared to the HD version of its Flash video for the same file. You can see for yourself by viewing anything on YouTube in HD quality via both Flash and HTML5.
</i></p><p><i>
Additionally, Ozer seemed to gloss over the fact that his tests really say next to nothing about the efficiency and performance of the Flash runtime compared to the use of open standards, because he wasnt testing Flash content rendering, but really only the playback of video data delivered via a Flash wrapper.
</i></p><p><i>
To deliver video, Flash really isnt doing anything special. Thats why browsers supporting HTML5 can do this themselves without needing something like Flash (or its doppelg&#228;nger, Microsofts Silverlight).
</i></p><p><i>
HTML5 savvy browsers like Safari and Chrome can also animate content and even (with a little more work) do the kinds of fancy interactive apps and games that Flash was originally targeted toward, all using open web specifications....</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are some [ roughlydrafted.com ] who feel that a Flash consultant , author and developer may not be the most unbiased person to do a comparison test. . A report purporting to vindicate the performance of Adobes Flash plugin in comparison to open standards broke through the weak editorial barriers of the tech community yesterday .
Its wrong , heres why .
. The report was created by Jan Ozer , a proponent of Flash who makes his living selling books and seminars about Adobes technologies .
The original article is even interrupted by an advertisement promoting Ozers Streaming Production and Flash Delivery Workshop .
After noting Ozers bias , one site commenting on it wrote , we dont think that [ his bias ] has any effect on the test outcomes [ his report presented ] .
The problem wasnt that Ozer faked data to promote Flash ; some of his findings actually indicate that even the early beta implementations of HTML5 beat the latest version of Flash in video playback tests .
The real issue is that Ozer framed the debate around an absurd premise to shift the conversation from real issues to contrived garbage .
A press release of fake science Coverage of Ozers press release uncritically reported his findings that certain browsers were no better ( or at least not much better ) at rendering video from YouTube via Googles experimental HTML5/H.264 site than via the standard Flash version of YouTube .
Ozer detailed only the reported CPU Utilization for his test Mac running Safari , Chrome , and Firefox browsers , and a PC running the same three browsers in addition to Internet Explorer .
He compared the performance of Flash 10 with the latest Flash 10.1 , and contrasted HTML5 playback on browsers that supported that as an alternative to Flash , not too subtly suggesting that HTML5 and H.264 were riddled with problems that inspire fear , uncertainty and doubt , while Flash simply works everywhere .
However , his results made no comment on the visual quality of Googles Flash vs raw H.264 implementations .
Previous tests I performed indicate that Googles beta version of YouTube running HTML5 delivers raw H.264 video with remarkably better picture equality compared to the HD version of its Flash video for the same file .
You can see for yourself by viewing anything on YouTube in HD quality via both Flash and HTML5 .
Additionally , Ozer seemed to gloss over the fact that his tests really say next to nothing about the efficiency and performance of the Flash runtime compared to the use of open standards , because he wasnt testing Flash content rendering , but really only the playback of video data delivered via a Flash wrapper .
To deliver video , Flash really isnt doing anything special .
Thats why browsers supporting HTML5 can do this themselves without needing something like Flash ( or its doppelg   nger , Microsofts Silverlight ) .
HTML5 savvy browsers like Safari and Chrome can also animate content and even ( with a little more work ) do the kinds of fancy interactive apps and games that Flash was originally targeted toward , all using open web specifications... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are some [roughlydrafted.com] who feel that a Flash consultant, author and developer may not be the most unbiased person to do a comparison test..

A report purporting to vindicate the performance of Adobes Flash plugin in comparison to open standards broke through the weak editorial barriers of the tech community yesterday.
Its wrong, heres why.
.
The report was created by Jan Ozer, a proponent of Flash who makes his living selling books and seminars about Adobes technologies.
The original article is even interrupted by an advertisement promoting Ozers Streaming Production and Flash Delivery Workshop.
After noting Ozers bias, one site commenting on it wrote, we dont think that [his bias] has any effect on the test outcomes [his report presented].
The problem wasnt that Ozer faked data to promote Flash; some of his findings actually indicate that even the early beta implementations of HTML5 beat the latest version of Flash in video playback tests.
The real issue is that Ozer framed the debate around an absurd premise to shift the conversation from real issues to contrived garbage.
A press release of fake science

Coverage of Ozers press release uncritically reported his findings that certain browsers were no better (or at least not much better) at rendering video from YouTube via Googles experimental HTML5/H.264 site than via the standard Flash version of YouTube.
Ozer detailed only the reported CPU Utilization for his test Mac running Safari, Chrome, and Firefox browsers, and a PC running the same three browsers in addition to Internet Explorer.
He compared the performance of Flash 10 with the latest Flash 10.1, and contrasted HTML5 playback on browsers that supported that as an alternative to Flash, not too subtly suggesting that HTML5 and H.264 were riddled with problems that inspire fear, uncertainty and doubt, while Flash simply works everywhere.
However, his results made no comment on the visual quality of Googles Flash vs raw H.264 implementations.
Previous tests I performed indicate that Googles beta version of YouTube running HTML5 delivers raw H.264 video with remarkably better picture equality compared to the HD version of its Flash video for the same file.
You can see for yourself by viewing anything on YouTube in HD quality via both Flash and HTML5.
Additionally, Ozer seemed to gloss over the fact that his tests really say next to nothing about the efficiency and performance of the Flash runtime compared to the use of open standards, because he wasnt testing Flash content rendering, but really only the playback of video data delivered via a Flash wrapper.
To deliver video, Flash really isnt doing anything special.
Thats why browsers supporting HTML5 can do this themselves without needing something like Flash (or its doppelgänger, Microsofts Silverlight).
HTML5 savvy browsers like Safari and Chrome can also animate content and even (with a little more work) do the kinds of fancy interactive apps and games that Flash was originally targeted toward, all using open web specifications....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471888</id>
	<title>Re:html5 is a clear winner</title>
	<author>The Second Horseman</author>
	<datestamp>1268578860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>H.264 isn't really open - the consortium just isn't charging royalties at this time. They can do so in the future, and they can make rules about the use of the standard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>H.264 is n't really open - the consortium just is n't charging royalties at this time .
They can do so in the future , and they can make rules about the use of the standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>H.264 isn't really open - the consortium just isn't charging royalties at this time.
They can do so in the future, and they can make rules about the use of the standard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471156</id>
	<title>Re:Flash aint so bad</title>
	<author>deniable</author>
	<datestamp>1268567580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Open source? Who cares? How about flash cookies, horrible ads, and stupid UIs for web-sites.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Open source ?
Who cares ?
How about flash cookies , horrible ads , and stupid UIs for web-sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open source?
Who cares?
How about flash cookies, horrible ads, and stupid UIs for web-sites.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471310</id>
	<title>Re:Flash aint so bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268570340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Open source? Who cares? How about flash cookies, horrible ads, and stupid UIs for web-sites.</p></div><p>Haven't you heard? Google and their Slashbot fanboys support replacing all that stuff with HTML5 in order to make it more difficult to disable or block.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Open source ?
Who cares ?
How about flash cookies , horrible ads , and stupid UIs for web-sites.Have n't you heard ?
Google and their Slashbot fanboys support replacing all that stuff with HTML5 in order to make it more difficult to disable or block .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open source?
Who cares?
How about flash cookies, horrible ads, and stupid UIs for web-sites.Haven't you heard?
Google and their Slashbot fanboys support replacing all that stuff with HTML5 in order to make it more difficult to disable or block.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471328</id>
	<title>Re:Flash aint so bad</title>
	<author>compro01</author>
	<datestamp>1268570640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Non-OSSness is the least of flash's issues.  Security issues and pathetic support on Linux (especially 64-bit systems) rank higher on my list of reasons why flash should die in a fire.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Non-OSSness is the least of flash 's issues .
Security issues and pathetic support on Linux ( especially 64-bit systems ) rank higher on my list of reasons why flash should die in a fire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Non-OSSness is the least of flash's issues.
Security issues and pathetic support on Linux (especially 64-bit systems) rank higher on my list of reasons why flash should die in a fire.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471246</id>
	<title>Re:This is not the right angle to look into it</title>
	<author>grumbel</author>
	<datestamp>1268569140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The browser and not the website owner controls how the video displays, the interface shown to the user</p></div><p>I doubt that, a lot of Flash players out there have quite advanced features compared to a standard video player. Youtube will for example allow captions, links and comments being added on-top of the video stream, it also allows changing the soundtrack of a video, other players have allowed adding comments directly to a time stamp or split the video into sections instead of a single linear bar and there is of course all that showing of related videos going on. Not quite sure how flexible HTML5 is, but I'd guess all that can be replicated with a heap load of Javascript, SVG and all that stuff. So I don't really expect to see standard video player on the web anytime.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The browser and not the website owner controls how the video displays , the interface shown to the userI doubt that , a lot of Flash players out there have quite advanced features compared to a standard video player .
Youtube will for example allow captions , links and comments being added on-top of the video stream , it also allows changing the soundtrack of a video , other players have allowed adding comments directly to a time stamp or split the video into sections instead of a single linear bar and there is of course all that showing of related videos going on .
Not quite sure how flexible HTML5 is , but I 'd guess all that can be replicated with a heap load of Javascript , SVG and all that stuff .
So I do n't really expect to see standard video player on the web anytime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The browser and not the website owner controls how the video displays, the interface shown to the userI doubt that, a lot of Flash players out there have quite advanced features compared to a standard video player.
Youtube will for example allow captions, links and comments being added on-top of the video stream, it also allows changing the soundtrack of a video, other players have allowed adding comments directly to a time stamp or split the video into sections instead of a single linear bar and there is of course all that showing of related videos going on.
Not quite sure how flexible HTML5 is, but I'd guess all that can be replicated with a heap load of Javascript, SVG and all that stuff.
So I don't really expect to see standard video player on the web anytime.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470886</id>
	<title>Why compare?</title>
	<author>gaelfx</author>
	<datestamp>1268562480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They are comparing an internet standard that is not yet finalized to what is supposedly a finished product. HTML5 hasn't even settled on a video codec, so how can there even be a real comparison here? Of course HTML5 can't take advantage of GPU acceleration yet, they don't even know what they'll be accelerating yet! The only thing this article does is point out that HTML5 hasn't had the chance to implement GPU acceleration and that maybe they should consider it as part of their criteria in their codec selection process.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are comparing an internet standard that is not yet finalized to what is supposedly a finished product .
HTML5 has n't even settled on a video codec , so how can there even be a real comparison here ?
Of course HTML5 ca n't take advantage of GPU acceleration yet , they do n't even know what they 'll be accelerating yet !
The only thing this article does is point out that HTML5 has n't had the chance to implement GPU acceleration and that maybe they should consider it as part of their criteria in their codec selection process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are comparing an internet standard that is not yet finalized to what is supposedly a finished product.
HTML5 hasn't even settled on a video codec, so how can there even be a real comparison here?
Of course HTML5 can't take advantage of GPU acceleration yet, they don't even know what they'll be accelerating yet!
The only thing this article does is point out that HTML5 hasn't had the chance to implement GPU acceleration and that maybe they should consider it as part of their criteria in their codec selection process.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472388</id>
	<title>How about running the tests on commodity hardware?</title>
	<author>v1x</author>
	<datestamp>1268585220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>FTA, the author conducted his 'tests' on a Mac Pro with a two Quad-Core Intel Xeon, 3 GHz processors (8 cores), with 12 MB L2 Cache, 8GB RAM. Needless to say, this is not the average user's computer, and any differences in performance between flash on Windows on Mac will become less obvious due to the sheer computational power available.

The tests would be more convincing if they were run on lesser hardware such as a Mac mini, where the differences in performance are far more noticeable (typing this on a Mac mini), so I dispute one of the main conclusions in the article: 'From these tests, Flash content does not perform consistently worse on Mac than on Windows.'</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTA , the author conducted his 'tests ' on a Mac Pro with a two Quad-Core Intel Xeon , 3 GHz processors ( 8 cores ) , with 12 MB L2 Cache , 8GB RAM .
Needless to say , this is not the average user 's computer , and any differences in performance between flash on Windows on Mac will become less obvious due to the sheer computational power available .
The tests would be more convincing if they were run on lesser hardware such as a Mac mini , where the differences in performance are far more noticeable ( typing this on a Mac mini ) , so I dispute one of the main conclusions in the article : 'From these tests , Flash content does not perform consistently worse on Mac than on Windows .
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTA, the author conducted his 'tests' on a Mac Pro with a two Quad-Core Intel Xeon, 3 GHz processors (8 cores), with 12 MB L2 Cache, 8GB RAM.
Needless to say, this is not the average user's computer, and any differences in performance between flash on Windows on Mac will become less obvious due to the sheer computational power available.
The tests would be more convincing if they were run on lesser hardware such as a Mac mini, where the differences in performance are far more noticeable (typing this on a Mac mini), so I dispute one of the main conclusions in the article: 'From these tests, Flash content does not perform consistently worse on Mac than on Windows.
'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31473504</id>
	<title>What about Opera</title>
	<author>patrikas</author>
	<datestamp>1268594880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Strange comparison. Last Toms Hardware browser competition showed that Opera beats all other browsers when it comes to Flash. I regret the author doesn't touch Opera here (or did I overlooked that ?) Anyway it seems to me that Chrome HTML5 support is likely to be improved soon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Strange comparison .
Last Toms Hardware browser competition showed that Opera beats all other browsers when it comes to Flash .
I regret the author does n't touch Opera here ( or did I overlooked that ?
) Anyway it seems to me that Chrome HTML5 support is likely to be improved soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Strange comparison.
Last Toms Hardware browser competition showed that Opera beats all other browsers when it comes to Flash.
I regret the author doesn't touch Opera here (or did I overlooked that ?
) Anyway it seems to me that Chrome HTML5 support is likely to be improved soon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471262</id>
	<title>Re:GPU acceleration and Opera</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1268569440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the submission:  "On the other hand, Flash more than held its own on Windows,"</p><p>"When was the last time Performance and better quality became critical in deciding which tech will be widely deployed?"</p><p>Personally - I wish that SECURITY were the primary criteria in deciding which tech will be widely deployed.  I'll sacrifice a bit of "performance", if HTML5 proves to be immune to all the exploits that Adobe products are open to.  Yes, of course, HTML5 will have exploits, but Adobe seems to be wide open today.</p><p>Yes, HTML5 supports "super cookies" - that's a potential exploit IMO.  What else is there?</p><p>Security, security, security.  If a new technology opens an entire new class of exploits, then it's not worth having, even if it increases "efficiency" by orders of magnitude.</p><p>That said - I favor HTML5, because it is "open", and people can manage their own risk.  With Adobe being closed, the open source crowd isn't free to search for the exploits that the black had people keep finding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the submission : " On the other hand , Flash more than held its own on Windows , " " When was the last time Performance and better quality became critical in deciding which tech will be widely deployed ?
" Personally - I wish that SECURITY were the primary criteria in deciding which tech will be widely deployed .
I 'll sacrifice a bit of " performance " , if HTML5 proves to be immune to all the exploits that Adobe products are open to .
Yes , of course , HTML5 will have exploits , but Adobe seems to be wide open today.Yes , HTML5 supports " super cookies " - that 's a potential exploit IMO .
What else is there ? Security , security , security .
If a new technology opens an entire new class of exploits , then it 's not worth having , even if it increases " efficiency " by orders of magnitude.That said - I favor HTML5 , because it is " open " , and people can manage their own risk .
With Adobe being closed , the open source crowd is n't free to search for the exploits that the black had people keep finding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the submission:  "On the other hand, Flash more than held its own on Windows,""When was the last time Performance and better quality became critical in deciding which tech will be widely deployed?
"Personally - I wish that SECURITY were the primary criteria in deciding which tech will be widely deployed.
I'll sacrifice a bit of "performance", if HTML5 proves to be immune to all the exploits that Adobe products are open to.
Yes, of course, HTML5 will have exploits, but Adobe seems to be wide open today.Yes, HTML5 supports "super cookies" - that's a potential exploit IMO.
What else is there?Security, security, security.
If a new technology opens an entire new class of exploits, then it's not worth having, even if it increases "efficiency" by orders of magnitude.That said - I favor HTML5, because it is "open", and people can manage their own risk.
With Adobe being closed, the open source crowd isn't free to search for the exploits that the black had people keep finding.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31477942</id>
	<title>Flash 10.1 vs HTML5 0.0.0.2</title>
	<author>zahanm</author>
	<datestamp>1268585700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Clearly there's a slight imbalance in comparing a very mature technology to one that doesn't even have finalised specifications yet, forget implementation.
And even now HTML5 beats out Flash on the level playing field (no h/w acceleration on the mac).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly there 's a slight imbalance in comparing a very mature technology to one that does n't even have finalised specifications yet , forget implementation .
And even now HTML5 beats out Flash on the level playing field ( no h/w acceleration on the mac ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly there's a slight imbalance in comparing a very mature technology to one that doesn't even have finalised specifications yet, forget implementation.
And even now HTML5 beats out Flash on the level playing field (no h/w acceleration on the mac).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472918</id>
	<title>TypeError in comparison</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1268589720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>while HTML5 did come out ahead in many respects, it wasn't exactly a clear winner.</p></div><p>Furthermore, the study finds find that gasoline isn't always as fast as motorcycles.</p><p>HTML5 is a standard with multiple implementations, none being particularly mature as it's not a finalized standard yet. Flash is a specific implementation of one technology from one vendor. They're just not the same class of object and you can't directly compare them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>while HTML5 did come out ahead in many respects , it was n't exactly a clear winner.Furthermore , the study finds find that gasoline is n't always as fast as motorcycles.HTML5 is a standard with multiple implementations , none being particularly mature as it 's not a finalized standard yet .
Flash is a specific implementation of one technology from one vendor .
They 're just not the same class of object and you ca n't directly compare them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>while HTML5 did come out ahead in many respects, it wasn't exactly a clear winner.Furthermore, the study finds find that gasoline isn't always as fast as motorcycles.HTML5 is a standard with multiple implementations, none being particularly mature as it's not a finalized standard yet.
Flash is a specific implementation of one technology from one vendor.
They're just not the same class of object and you can't directly compare them.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472120</id>
	<title>Re:html5 is a clear winner</title>
	<author>astar</author>
	<datestamp>1268582160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>there are some os issues.  if you want openbsd and need flash, you pretty much have a double bind going.  this is because the ports flash is old and gets complaints from all the web sites.  yah, I guess you could put in linux emulation and a linux flash binary, but somehow I never got that to work.  so I needed firmware and maybe that did not work right.   but if i got flash installed, that is just another reason to not have security warm fuzzies.</p><p>so i would be happy to see flash become irrelevant</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there are some os issues .
if you want openbsd and need flash , you pretty much have a double bind going .
this is because the ports flash is old and gets complaints from all the web sites .
yah , I guess you could put in linux emulation and a linux flash binary , but somehow I never got that to work .
so I needed firmware and maybe that did not work right .
but if i got flash installed , that is just another reason to not have security warm fuzzies.so i would be happy to see flash become irrelevant</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there are some os issues.
if you want openbsd and need flash, you pretty much have a double bind going.
this is because the ports flash is old and gets complaints from all the web sites.
yah, I guess you could put in linux emulation and a linux flash binary, but somehow I never got that to work.
so I needed firmware and maybe that did not work right.
but if i got flash installed, that is just another reason to not have security warm fuzzies.so i would be happy to see flash become irrelevant</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471268</id>
	<title>Re:Anecdotal evidence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268569440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My fans spin up playing *windowed* Flash video. Adobe aren't even trying on OS X.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My fans spin up playing * windowed * Flash video .
Adobe are n't even trying on OS X .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My fans spin up playing *windowed* Flash video.
Adobe aren't even trying on OS X.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471354</id>
	<title>Re:Flash aint so bad</title>
	<author>jgrahn</author>
	<datestamp>1268571120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Sure it gets bashed on Slashdot for not being open source but so what?</p></div></blockquote><p>
The practical results range from extra trouble (doesn't come prepackaged with my OS)
to showstoppers (have a 64-bit CPU? Sorry, we don't support that.)
The only application good enough to make up for that kind of trouble is Opera.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure it gets bashed on Slashdot for not being open source but so what ?
The practical results range from extra trouble ( does n't come prepackaged with my OS ) to showstoppers ( have a 64-bit CPU ?
Sorry , we do n't support that .
) The only application good enough to make up for that kind of trouble is Opera .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure it gets bashed on Slashdot for not being open source but so what?
The practical results range from extra trouble (doesn't come prepackaged with my OS)
to showstoppers (have a 64-bit CPU?
Sorry, we don't support that.
)
The only application good enough to make up for that kind of trouble is Opera.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471920</id>
	<title>Re:I've yet to see HTML5 video work</title>
	<author>AresTheImpaler</author>
	<datestamp>1268579340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Assuming you were using firefox (since you are running XP), it will send a theora video which more than likely wont be hardware accelerated. Some H.264 videos will get hardware acceleration if you get a card that supports it. Even some integrated video chips support hardware acceleration for H.264. Once what ever video format gets more momentum and gets hardware acceleration you'll notice how low the cpu an go with it. This is great news for smartphones and other battery (and not very fast cpu) devices as the hardware acceleration would allow for both smoother operation and a lower power consumption.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Assuming you were using firefox ( since you are running XP ) , it will send a theora video which more than likely wont be hardware accelerated .
Some H.264 videos will get hardware acceleration if you get a card that supports it .
Even some integrated video chips support hardware acceleration for H.264 .
Once what ever video format gets more momentum and gets hardware acceleration you 'll notice how low the cpu an go with it .
This is great news for smartphones and other battery ( and not very fast cpu ) devices as the hardware acceleration would allow for both smoother operation and a lower power consumption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assuming you were using firefox (since you are running XP), it will send a theora video which more than likely wont be hardware accelerated.
Some H.264 videos will get hardware acceleration if you get a card that supports it.
Even some integrated video chips support hardware acceleration for H.264.
Once what ever video format gets more momentum and gets hardware acceleration you'll notice how low the cpu an go with it.
This is great news for smartphones and other battery (and not very fast cpu) devices as the hardware acceleration would allow for both smoother operation and a lower power consumption.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31475350</id>
	<title>Re:I've yet to see HTML5 video work</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1268565660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tried it too. It plays great in Chrome.</p><p>But Firefox is another story. It plays great until I maximize it - then it stutters like crazy, on my 3.5ghz Phenom II X4.</p><p>720p? Why is it in a dinky little box, then?</p><p>That said, I love the UI. Very professional looking.</p><p>Also, I figured I'd toss this link out for comparison/interest: <a href="http://camendesign.com/code/video\_for\_everybody" title="camendesign.com">http://camendesign.com/code/video\_for\_everybody</a> [camendesign.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried it too .
It plays great in Chrome.But Firefox is another story .
It plays great until I maximize it - then it stutters like crazy , on my 3.5ghz Phenom II X4.720p ?
Why is it in a dinky little box , then ? That said , I love the UI .
Very professional looking.Also , I figured I 'd toss this link out for comparison/interest : http : //camendesign.com/code/video \ _for \ _everybody [ camendesign.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried it too.
It plays great in Chrome.But Firefox is another story.
It plays great until I maximize it - then it stutters like crazy, on my 3.5ghz Phenom II X4.720p?
Why is it in a dinky little box, then?That said, I love the UI.
Very professional looking.Also, I figured I'd toss this link out for comparison/interest: http://camendesign.com/code/video\_for\_everybody [camendesign.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470848</id>
	<title>Crap article</title>
	<author>heffrey</author>
	<datestamp>1268561940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The author implies that adobe can't use gpu for flash on mac. Why not? Is he getting confused with iphone which is different from the mac, at least the last time I checked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The author implies that adobe ca n't use gpu for flash on mac .
Why not ?
Is he getting confused with iphone which is different from the mac , at least the last time I checked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The author implies that adobe can't use gpu for flash on mac.
Why not?
Is he getting confused with iphone which is different from the mac, at least the last time I checked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31473794</id>
	<title>Re:Check your sources...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268597220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll add an anecdote.  For me it's HTML5: 15-20\%, any size clip up to whatever the max resolution youtube offers is vs Flash: 80\% for 360p and it just goes up from there.  And scaling seems to be extremely inefficient, hulu nearly doubles the CPU requirement for full screen video.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll add an anecdote .
For me it 's HTML5 : 15-20 \ % , any size clip up to whatever the max resolution youtube offers is vs Flash : 80 \ % for 360p and it just goes up from there .
And scaling seems to be extremely inefficient , hulu nearly doubles the CPU requirement for full screen video .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll add an anecdote.
For me it's HTML5: 15-20\%, any size clip up to whatever the max resolution youtube offers is vs Flash: 80\% for 360p and it just goes up from there.
And scaling seems to be extremely inefficient, hulu nearly doubles the CPU requirement for full screen video.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471284</id>
	<title>Re:Flash aint so bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268569680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry, I don't follow the logic of your post:</p><ul><li>Slashdot (whose posters are not a single entity, but that is not the point) wants Ogg (Vorbis, really) to kill off MP3</li><li>You don't see that happening</li><li>Therefore who cares that Flash is not open source</li><li>Alternatively, therefore Flash is not that bad</li></ul><p>Is this the chain of reasoning you're using?  Is your point that because one open technology is not beating a proprietary technology, there's no point in talking about open technology at all?  Or that because Vorbis hasn't killed off MP3, Flash is a good technology?  Or something else?</p><p>I'm serious; I don't understand what you're trying to say.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , I do n't follow the logic of your post : Slashdot ( whose posters are not a single entity , but that is not the point ) wants Ogg ( Vorbis , really ) to kill off MP3You do n't see that happeningTherefore who cares that Flash is not open sourceAlternatively , therefore Flash is not that badIs this the chain of reasoning you 're using ?
Is your point that because one open technology is not beating a proprietary technology , there 's no point in talking about open technology at all ?
Or that because Vorbis has n't killed off MP3 , Flash is a good technology ?
Or something else ? I 'm serious ; I do n't understand what you 're trying to say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, I don't follow the logic of your post:Slashdot (whose posters are not a single entity, but that is not the point) wants Ogg (Vorbis, really) to kill off MP3You don't see that happeningTherefore who cares that Flash is not open sourceAlternatively, therefore Flash is not that badIs this the chain of reasoning you're using?
Is your point that because one open technology is not beating a proprietary technology, there's no point in talking about open technology at all?
Or that because Vorbis hasn't killed off MP3, Flash is a good technology?
Or something else?I'm serious; I don't understand what you're trying to say.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472724</id>
	<title>Re:GPU acceleration and Opera</title>
	<author>colinrichardday</author>
	<datestamp>1268588160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>With Adobe being closed, the open source crowd isn't free to search for the exploits that the black had people keep finding.</i></p><p>Yeah, because FSF isn't going to let anyone inspect the gnash code. SWF is a format, not an implementation. And yes, gnash works on YouTube.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With Adobe being closed , the open source crowd is n't free to search for the exploits that the black had people keep finding.Yeah , because FSF is n't going to let anyone inspect the gnash code .
SWF is a format , not an implementation .
And yes , gnash works on YouTube .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With Adobe being closed, the open source crowd isn't free to search for the exploits that the black had people keep finding.Yeah, because FSF isn't going to let anyone inspect the gnash code.
SWF is a format, not an implementation.
And yes, gnash works on YouTube.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472622</id>
	<title>Re:GPU acceleration and Opera</title>
	<author>BrokenHalo</author>
	<datestamp>1268587020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>That said - I favor HTML5, because it is "open"</i> <br> <br>
That seems a bit rash: there's nothing that says a standard cannot include closed protocols. There are well established <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office\_Open\_XML" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">precedents</a> [wikipedia.org] that suggest that standards bodies are not immune to blandishments or coercion from big corporations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That said - I favor HTML5 , because it is " open " That seems a bit rash : there 's nothing that says a standard can not include closed protocols .
There are well established precedents [ wikipedia.org ] that suggest that standards bodies are not immune to blandishments or coercion from big corporations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That said - I favor HTML5, because it is "open"  
That seems a bit rash: there's nothing that says a standard cannot include closed protocols.
There are well established precedents [wikipedia.org] that suggest that standards bodies are not immune to blandishments or coercion from big corporations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472500</id>
	<title>No comparison</title>
	<author>thethibs</author>
	<datestamp>1268586120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Comparing Version 1 of one product with version 10 of another?</p><p>It's comforting to see that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. can still get sucked in by a well-crafted strawman.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Comparing Version 1 of one product with version 10 of another ? It 's comforting to see that / .
can still get sucked in by a well-crafted strawman .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Comparing Version 1 of one product with version 10 of another?It's comforting to see that /.
can still get sucked in by a well-crafted strawman.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471350</id>
	<title>Re:GPU acceleration and Opera</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268571000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I favor HTML5, because it is "open", and people can manage their own risk.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Most people can't manage their own desktop, how they gonna manage their own risk?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I favor HTML5 , because it is " open " , and people can manage their own risk .
Most people ca n't manage their own desktop , how they gon na manage their own risk ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I favor HTML5, because it is "open", and people can manage their own risk.
Most people can't manage their own desktop, how they gonna manage their own risk?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471980</id>
	<title>Re:Anecdotal evidence</title>
	<author>rsax</author>
	<datestamp>1268580420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My Macbook's fan kicks in when viewing this HTML5 demo for more than 5 or 10 minutes <a href="http://9elements.com/io/projects/html5/canvas/" title="9elements.com">http://9elements.com/io/projects/html5/canvas/</a> [9elements.com]  Adobe does have a lot of work to do where Flash is concerned but from what I've read I get the impression that Apple doesn't seem to be as eager to work with them as Microsoft has been.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My Macbook 's fan kicks in when viewing this HTML5 demo for more than 5 or 10 minutes http : //9elements.com/io/projects/html5/canvas/ [ 9elements.com ] Adobe does have a lot of work to do where Flash is concerned but from what I 've read I get the impression that Apple does n't seem to be as eager to work with them as Microsoft has been .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My Macbook's fan kicks in when viewing this HTML5 demo for more than 5 or 10 minutes http://9elements.com/io/projects/html5/canvas/ [9elements.com]  Adobe does have a lot of work to do where Flash is concerned but from what I've read I get the impression that Apple doesn't seem to be as eager to work with them as Microsoft has been.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470850</id>
	<title>I've yet to see HTML5 video work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268561940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've yet to see HTML5 video work - whenever I try one of those (such as the one when Firefox starts up and tells you about it) I get such dreadful performance it isn't worth watching.<br>And yet on the same computer (Windows XP) with the same connection I can watch BBC iPlayer (which is based on Adobe Flash/Air) in 1920x1200 with a decent frame rate and decent quality.</p><p>Not saying HTML5 video won't happen, I'm sure it will, but I think its early days yet. Flash will be around for some time to come.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've yet to see HTML5 video work - whenever I try one of those ( such as the one when Firefox starts up and tells you about it ) I get such dreadful performance it is n't worth watching.And yet on the same computer ( Windows XP ) with the same connection I can watch BBC iPlayer ( which is based on Adobe Flash/Air ) in 1920x1200 with a decent frame rate and decent quality.Not saying HTML5 video wo n't happen , I 'm sure it will , but I think its early days yet .
Flash will be around for some time to come .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've yet to see HTML5 video work - whenever I try one of those (such as the one when Firefox starts up and tells you about it) I get such dreadful performance it isn't worth watching.And yet on the same computer (Windows XP) with the same connection I can watch BBC iPlayer (which is based on Adobe Flash/Air) in 1920x1200 with a decent frame rate and decent quality.Not saying HTML5 video won't happen, I'm sure it will, but I think its early days yet.
Flash will be around for some time to come.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31474240</id>
	<title>Re:I've yet to see HTML5 video work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268558220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yea I use older machines around the house too, my 1.8ghz A-XP with a 6600GT has little problems with H.26</p><p>this sample got (yes ever so slightly) jittery whenever it was panning (ie not showing a mostly still image) on a 2.8ghz dual core and a 9600GT</p><p>so what is this going to do when there is real video on screen, with lots of motion?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yea I use older machines around the house too , my 1.8ghz A-XP with a 6600GT has little problems with H.26this sample got ( yes ever so slightly ) jittery whenever it was panning ( ie not showing a mostly still image ) on a 2.8ghz dual core and a 9600GTso what is this going to do when there is real video on screen , with lots of motion ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yea I use older machines around the house too, my 1.8ghz A-XP with a 6600GT has little problems with H.26this sample got (yes ever so slightly) jittery whenever it was panning (ie not showing a mostly still image) on a 2.8ghz dual core and a 9600GTso what is this going to do when there is real video on screen, with lots of motion?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472228</id>
	<title>Re:Honestly</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1268583480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I don't care if Flash is 50\% faster than HTML5 video. I don't want Flash on my primary OS just to watch a YouTube video. Period.</i> <p>
You should care.</p><p>
Flash is more than a video player.</p><p>
H.264 support has Mozilla and Firefox tied up in knots. The Flash plug-in is not going away.</p><p>
Apple doesn't have an entrant in the netbook sector.</p><p>
The Atom + Windows + ION2 + Flash 10.1 netbook will likely hit the market priced at under $400.</p><p> <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/03/acer-aspire-one-532g-with-ion-2-priced-at-an-aggressive-379-euro/" title="engadget.com">Acer Aspire One 532G with ION 2 priced at an aggressive 379 euros</a> [engadget.com] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't care if Flash is 50 \ % faster than HTML5 video .
I do n't want Flash on my primary OS just to watch a YouTube video .
Period . You should care .
Flash is more than a video player .
H.264 support has Mozilla and Firefox tied up in knots .
The Flash plug-in is not going away .
Apple does n't have an entrant in the netbook sector .
The Atom + Windows + ION2 + Flash 10.1 netbook will likely hit the market priced at under $ 400 .
Acer Aspire One 532G with ION 2 priced at an aggressive 379 euros [ engadget.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't care if Flash is 50\% faster than HTML5 video.
I don't want Flash on my primary OS just to watch a YouTube video.
Period. 
You should care.
Flash is more than a video player.
H.264 support has Mozilla and Firefox tied up in knots.
The Flash plug-in is not going away.
Apple doesn't have an entrant in the netbook sector.
The Atom + Windows + ION2 + Flash 10.1 netbook will likely hit the market priced at under $400.
Acer Aspire One 532G with ION 2 priced at an aggressive 379 euros [engadget.com] </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31474090</id>
	<title>Completely unfair comparison</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1268600160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It&rsquo;s like comparing your 10th generation of a sports car, that got optimized for decades, against a brand-new experimental car.<br>Of course the old one will win! But that says nothing about how it will be, when the new one got the same amount of optimization.</p><p>But what is important, is that the new car offers so many new freedoms, that it&rsquo;s worth it, even if it were much slower.</p><p>In this case, the seamless embedding of videos, and the native playback alone, are two killer points that you can never ever achieve with Flash. Or can Flash do this: <a href="http://people.mozilla.com/~prouget/demos/" title="mozilla.com">http://people.mozilla.com/~prouget/demos/</a> [mozilla.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It    s like comparing your 10th generation of a sports car , that got optimized for decades , against a brand-new experimental car.Of course the old one will win !
But that says nothing about how it will be , when the new one got the same amount of optimization.But what is important , is that the new car offers so many new freedoms , that it    s worth it , even if it were much slower.In this case , the seamless embedding of videos , and the native playback alone , are two killer points that you can never ever achieve with Flash .
Or can Flash do this : http : //people.mozilla.com/ ~ prouget/demos/ [ mozilla.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It’s like comparing your 10th generation of a sports car, that got optimized for decades, against a brand-new experimental car.Of course the old one will win!
But that says nothing about how it will be, when the new one got the same amount of optimization.But what is important, is that the new car offers so many new freedoms, that it’s worth it, even if it were much slower.In this case, the seamless embedding of videos, and the native playback alone, are two killer points that you can never ever achieve with Flash.
Or can Flash do this: http://people.mozilla.com/~prouget/demos/ [mozilla.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471050</id>
	<title>Flash is not limited to video</title>
	<author>AwaxSlashdot</author>
	<datestamp>1268565240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if the results are real, there are a few shortcoming.</p><p>Mainly, the performance issue, especially on MacOS, is<br>not limited to video. Even plain simple Flash with animated<br>clip art is a CPU hog. This is what REALLY needs to<br>be benchmarked and documented.</p><p>Then, all videos are not equal. For the same bandwith, when comparing H264 in HTML5 and Flash codec in Flash player, we need to compare the CPU usage AND the final<br>quality.</p><p>Finally, the test should be performed on the same hardware for both MacOS and Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if the results are real , there are a few shortcoming.Mainly , the performance issue , especially on MacOS , isnot limited to video .
Even plain simple Flash with animatedclip art is a CPU hog .
This is what REALLY needs tobe benchmarked and documented.Then , all videos are not equal .
For the same bandwith , when comparing H264 in HTML5 and Flash codec in Flash player , we need to compare the CPU usage AND the finalquality.Finally , the test should be performed on the same hardware for both MacOS and Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if the results are real, there are a few shortcoming.Mainly, the performance issue, especially on MacOS, isnot limited to video.
Even plain simple Flash with animatedclip art is a CPU hog.
This is what REALLY needs tobe benchmarked and documented.Then, all videos are not equal.
For the same bandwith, when comparing H264 in HTML5 and Flash codec in Flash player, we need to compare the CPU usage AND the finalquality.Finally, the test should be performed on the same hardware for both MacOS and Windows.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472244</id>
	<title>Re:Check your sources...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268583660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your quote says Flash "does not perform consistently worse on Mac than on Windows."</p><p>Your anecdote says Flash performs worse than HTML5 video (unspecified browser and OS).</p><p>The two statements are not in conflict; it only needs to have a dog-slow Flash everywhere.  Which is about what I see...</p><p>Also: I suspect you're using Safari on OSX using modern hardware, in which case it would be because you're using the GPU to decode that video, thus reducing CPU usage.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your quote says Flash " does not perform consistently worse on Mac than on Windows .
" Your anecdote says Flash performs worse than HTML5 video ( unspecified browser and OS ) .The two statements are not in conflict ; it only needs to have a dog-slow Flash everywhere .
Which is about what I see...Also : I suspect you 're using Safari on OSX using modern hardware , in which case it would be because you 're using the GPU to decode that video , thus reducing CPU usage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your quote says Flash "does not perform consistently worse on Mac than on Windows.
"Your anecdote says Flash performs worse than HTML5 video (unspecified browser and OS).The two statements are not in conflict; it only needs to have a dog-slow Flash everywhere.
Which is about what I see...Also: I suspect you're using Safari on OSX using modern hardware, in which case it would be because you're using the GPU to decode that video, thus reducing CPU usage.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470942</id>
	<title>priorities</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268563140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>who cares if it isn't faster it's open thats what matters surely we've learnt this by now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>who cares if it is n't faster it 's open thats what matters surely we 've learnt this by now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>who cares if it isn't faster it's open thats what matters surely we've learnt this by now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471186</id>
	<title>Re:I've yet to see HTML5 video work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268568120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>check this:<br><a href="http://jilion.com/sublime/video" title="jilion.com">http://jilion.com/sublime/video</a> [jilion.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>check this : http : //jilion.com/sublime/video [ jilion.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>check this:http://jilion.com/sublime/video [jilion.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31474400</id>
	<title>Re:I've yet to see HTML5 video work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268559660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The video on that site is 720p.  You can't exactly compare it to low resolution Youtube.  I imagine Youtube at 720p is unusable on that CPU as well.<br> <br>Also, for some reason, that video used significantly less CPU at fullscreen on my computer than when downscaled into the little box.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The video on that site is 720p .
You ca n't exactly compare it to low resolution Youtube .
I imagine Youtube at 720p is unusable on that CPU as well .
Also , for some reason , that video used significantly less CPU at fullscreen on my computer than when downscaled into the little box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The video on that site is 720p.
You can't exactly compare it to low resolution Youtube.
I imagine Youtube at 720p is unusable on that CPU as well.
Also, for some reason, that video used significantly less CPU at fullscreen on my computer than when downscaled into the little box.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31615754</id>
	<title>Re:Why can't Firefox and Opera just use the damn O</title>
	<author>plastbox</author>
	<datestamp>1269548280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would mod you up if I had any points. Simple, true and to the point. There really isn't anything more to it.</p><p>Well, perhaps apart from how different doing said calls would be on Linux, Windows, OSX, etc. I don't know, but if that's how it's done for images and fonts, I fail to see how video should be any different (if a tad more complex). My OS, and thus any software running inside it, can display png files. My OS has a build-in h.264 decoder, but even Chrome (the only h.264 capable browser I have installed) is doing a rather shitty job at rendering said video format. It runs smoothly, but it uses far more resources than seems justifiable to do so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would mod you up if I had any points .
Simple , true and to the point .
There really is n't anything more to it.Well , perhaps apart from how different doing said calls would be on Linux , Windows , OSX , etc .
I do n't know , but if that 's how it 's done for images and fonts , I fail to see how video should be any different ( if a tad more complex ) .
My OS , and thus any software running inside it , can display png files .
My OS has a build-in h.264 decoder , but even Chrome ( the only h.264 capable browser I have installed ) is doing a rather shitty job at rendering said video format .
It runs smoothly , but it uses far more resources than seems justifiable to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would mod you up if I had any points.
Simple, true and to the point.
There really isn't anything more to it.Well, perhaps apart from how different doing said calls would be on Linux, Windows, OSX, etc.
I don't know, but if that's how it's done for images and fonts, I fail to see how video should be any different (if a tad more complex).
My OS, and thus any software running inside it, can display png files.
My OS has a build-in h.264 decoder, but even Chrome (the only h.264 capable browser I have installed) is doing a rather shitty job at rendering said video format.
It runs smoothly, but it uses far more resources than seems justifiable to do so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31473298</id>
	<title>missing features</title>
	<author>yupa</author>
	<datestamp>1268593140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=292" title="multimedia.cx" rel="nofollow">http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=292</a> [multimedia.cx] list some missing feature a html5 :<br>- buffering control<br>- signalling back to server<br>- Quality of implementations</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //x264dev.multimedia.cx/ ? p = 292 [ multimedia.cx ] list some missing feature a html5 : - buffering control- signalling back to server- Quality of implementations</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=292 [multimedia.cx] list some missing feature a html5 :- buffering control- signalling back to server- Quality of implementations</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472420</id>
	<title>Re:html5 is a clear winner</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268585340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GIMP is a clear winner by virtue of not being Adobe Photoshop or any other proprietary application but an open standard.</p><p>Boy do I sound retarded.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GIMP is a clear winner by virtue of not being Adobe Photoshop or any other proprietary application but an open standard.Boy do I sound retarded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GIMP is a clear winner by virtue of not being Adobe Photoshop or any other proprietary application but an open standard.Boy do I sound retarded.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471394</id>
	<title>Honestly</title>
	<author>trifish</author>
	<datestamp>1268571960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't care if Flash is 50\% faster than HTML5 video. I don't want the vulnerability-laden Flash on my primary OS just to watch a YouTube video. Period.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't care if Flash is 50 \ % faster than HTML5 video .
I do n't want the vulnerability-laden Flash on my primary OS just to watch a YouTube video .
Period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't care if Flash is 50\% faster than HTML5 video.
I don't want the vulnerability-laden Flash on my primary OS just to watch a YouTube video.
Period.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471734</id>
	<title>Re:I've yet to see HTML5 video work</title>
	<author>lawyer boy</author>
	<datestamp>1268576820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Playing the video on my MacBook Pro resulting in Safari going from 5\% of CPU to 20\%.  Clearly, YMMV.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Playing the video on my MacBook Pro resulting in Safari going from 5 \ % of CPU to 20 \ % .
Clearly , YMMV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Playing the video on my MacBook Pro resulting in Safari going from 5\% of CPU to 20\%.
Clearly, YMMV.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471534</id>
	<title>Re:I've yet to see HTML5 video work</title>
	<author>hairyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1268574360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know about him but <strong>I</strong> tried your link on my netbox, a 1.8GHz Sempron running XP Home, and it kept the CPU redlined while the video was a slideshow, even though the video was just a tiny slice on the screen, while only having two tabs open (this page and the video). Meanwhile Youtube H.264 in SD plays just fine full screen and plays nicely even with multiple tabs open.</p><p>

Was that the point you were trying to make? Or was it that the link you provided was to a "better" HTML5 player? Because if I'm gonna have to fire up my quad just to watch a video in HTML5 I'll stick with Flash, thanks anyway. I can always slap a cheap 4650 into the AGP slot if I want to get HD on this single core PC, thanks to hardware acceleration. Can I do that with HTML5?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about him but I tried your link on my netbox , a 1.8GHz Sempron running XP Home , and it kept the CPU redlined while the video was a slideshow , even though the video was just a tiny slice on the screen , while only having two tabs open ( this page and the video ) .
Meanwhile Youtube H.264 in SD plays just fine full screen and plays nicely even with multiple tabs open .
Was that the point you were trying to make ?
Or was it that the link you provided was to a " better " HTML5 player ?
Because if I 'm gon na have to fire up my quad just to watch a video in HTML5 I 'll stick with Flash , thanks anyway .
I can always slap a cheap 4650 into the AGP slot if I want to get HD on this single core PC , thanks to hardware acceleration .
Can I do that with HTML5 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about him but I tried your link on my netbox, a 1.8GHz Sempron running XP Home, and it kept the CPU redlined while the video was a slideshow, even though the video was just a tiny slice on the screen, while only having two tabs open (this page and the video).
Meanwhile Youtube H.264 in SD plays just fine full screen and plays nicely even with multiple tabs open.
Was that the point you were trying to make?
Or was it that the link you provided was to a "better" HTML5 player?
Because if I'm gonna have to fire up my quad just to watch a video in HTML5 I'll stick with Flash, thanks anyway.
I can always slap a cheap 4650 into the AGP slot if I want to get HD on this single core PC, thanks to hardware acceleration.
Can I do that with HTML5?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31474528</id>
	<title>Re:html5 is a clear winner</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1268560680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HTML5 doesn't mandate H.264.</p><p>With Flash, you're stuck with proprietary codecs. There's no chance in hell that you'd be able to use Theora with that (and even if you would, why bother, if the rest of the platform is proprietary?).</p><p>With HTML5, we'll see H.264 and Theora (and maybe others) fight it out. Even though I fully expect H.264 to win this fight, it's not over yet. And regardless of how it ends, this won't preclude the OSS community from shipping browsers that support Theora, nor from using it on their websites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HTML5 does n't mandate H.264.With Flash , you 're stuck with proprietary codecs .
There 's no chance in hell that you 'd be able to use Theora with that ( and even if you would , why bother , if the rest of the platform is proprietary ?
) .With HTML5 , we 'll see H.264 and Theora ( and maybe others ) fight it out .
Even though I fully expect H.264 to win this fight , it 's not over yet .
And regardless of how it ends , this wo n't preclude the OSS community from shipping browsers that support Theora , nor from using it on their websites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HTML5 doesn't mandate H.264.With Flash, you're stuck with proprietary codecs.
There's no chance in hell that you'd be able to use Theora with that (and even if you would, why bother, if the rest of the platform is proprietary?
).With HTML5, we'll see H.264 and Theora (and maybe others) fight it out.
Even though I fully expect H.264 to win this fight, it's not over yet.
And regardless of how it ends, this won't preclude the OSS community from shipping browsers that support Theora, nor from using it on their websites.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31473978</id>
	<title>Re:No comparison</title>
	<author>BoppreH</author>
	<datestamp>1268599140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>According to your definition, we would never be able to compare two programs that weren't created at the same time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to your definition , we would never be able to compare two programs that were n't created at the same time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to your definition, we would never be able to compare two programs that weren't created at the same time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470952</id>
	<title>Anecdotal evidence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268563260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Obviously this is anecdotal, but the fans on my Macbook pro often spin up playing full screen flash video, but never while playing video in Quicktime. But even if HTML5 performs no better than Flash currently, HTML5 still wins because it doesn't rely on Adobe to issue security and performance updates.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously this is anecdotal , but the fans on my Macbook pro often spin up playing full screen flash video , but never while playing video in Quicktime .
But even if HTML5 performs no better than Flash currently , HTML5 still wins because it does n't rely on Adobe to issue security and performance updates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously this is anecdotal, but the fans on my Macbook pro often spin up playing full screen flash video, but never while playing video in Quicktime.
But even if HTML5 performs no better than Flash currently, HTML5 still wins because it doesn't rely on Adobe to issue security and performance updates.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_0511226_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_0511226_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31615754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_0511226_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31474410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_0511226_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_0511226_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_0511226_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_0511226_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_0511226_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_0511226_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31473978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_0511226_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_0511226_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_0511226_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31482058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_0511226_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_0511226_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31475350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_0511226_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_0511226_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_0511226_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31474018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_0511226_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31474400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_0511226_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_0511226_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_0511226_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31473330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_0511226_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_0511226_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_0511226_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_0511226_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_0511226_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_0511226_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_0511226_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_0511226_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_0511226_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31474240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_0511226_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31474528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_0511226_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_0511226_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_0511226_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_0511226_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_0511226_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31473794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_0511226.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470858
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471262
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472724
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471350
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472622
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_0511226.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471186
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31474018
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471534
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471734
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31475350
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31474400
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31474240
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471904
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31473330
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471920
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_0511226.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31474410
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_0511226.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471930
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_0511226.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471980
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_0511226.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471070
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_0511226.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471244
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_0511226.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470848
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_0511226.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31473558
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_0511226.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472918
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_0511226.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472388
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_0511226.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31474424
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_0511226.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470948
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_0511226.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470886
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_0511226.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472058
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_0511226.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470856
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_0511226.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471246
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_0511226.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471202
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_0511226.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31473794
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_0511226.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471674
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_0511226.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471156
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471434
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_0511226.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31482058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472228
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472988
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_0511226.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472068
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_0511226.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31473978
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_0511226.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31615754
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_0511226.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471648
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_0511226.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31470926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472430
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31472902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471888
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31474528
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_0511226.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471136
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_0511226.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_0511226.31471008
</commentlist>
</conversation>
