<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_15_2031211</id>
	<title>25 Years of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com gTLD</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1268644380000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"The domain COM was installed as one of the first set of top-level domains when the Domain Name System was first implemented for use on the Internet in January 1985. The internet celebrates a landmark event on the 15th of March &mdash; <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8567414.stm">the 25th anniversary of the day the first .com name was registered</a>. Of the 250 million websites, there are over 80 million active .com sites. In March 1985, Symbolics computers of Cambridge, Massachusetts entered the history books with an internet address ending in .com (however, on 27 August 2009, <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2009/08/27/25-years-later-first-registered-domain-name-changes-hands/">it was sold to XF.com Investments</a>). That same year another five companies jumped on a very slow bandwagon. Here is a list of the <a href="http://dnsknowledge.com/news/25-years-of-the-com/">100 oldest still-existing registered .com domains</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " The domain COM was installed as one of the first set of top-level domains when the Domain Name System was first implemented for use on the Internet in January 1985 .
The internet celebrates a landmark event on the 15th of March    the 25th anniversary of the day the first .com name was registered .
Of the 250 million websites , there are over 80 million active .com sites .
In March 1985 , Symbolics computers of Cambridge , Massachusetts entered the history books with an internet address ending in .com ( however , on 27 August 2009 , it was sold to XF.com Investments ) .
That same year another five companies jumped on a very slow bandwagon .
Here is a list of the 100 oldest still-existing registered .com domains .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "The domain COM was installed as one of the first set of top-level domains when the Domain Name System was first implemented for use on the Internet in January 1985.
The internet celebrates a landmark event on the 15th of March — the 25th anniversary of the day the first .com name was registered.
Of the 250 million websites, there are over 80 million active .com sites.
In March 1985, Symbolics computers of Cambridge, Massachusetts entered the history books with an internet address ending in .com (however, on 27 August 2009, it was sold to XF.com Investments).
That same year another five companies jumped on a very slow bandwagon.
Here is a list of the 100 oldest still-existing registered .com domains.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31491816</id>
	<title>Crash Telecommunications Services - #62</title>
	<author>calidoscope</author>
	<datestamp>1268673000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My first ISP was CTS.COM, had an account from 1995-2003. Would still be with them, but they dropped their DSL biz in 2003. What's funny is that the DNS entry for my host still resolves...</htmltext>
<tokenext>My first ISP was CTS.COM , had an account from 1995-2003 .
Would still be with them , but they dropped their DSL biz in 2003 .
What 's funny is that the DNS entry for my host still resolves.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My first ISP was CTS.COM, had an account from 1995-2003.
Would still be with them, but they dropped their DSL biz in 2003.
What's funny is that the DNS entry for my host still resolves...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488190</id>
	<title>Fanboyism</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1268649120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apple is there.<br>
Microsoft is not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple is there .
Microsoft is not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple is there.
Microsoft is not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488220</id>
	<title>Alcoa is 40th oldest?!</title>
	<author>jschen</author>
	<datestamp>1268649300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I find it surprising that Alcoa is so high up the list, beating out big computer and communications tech names such as AMD, 3COM, Apple, and Cisco. I'm curious as to what compelled them to register a domain name way back in Nov 1986.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it surprising that Alcoa is so high up the list , beating out big computer and communications tech names such as AMD , 3COM , Apple , and Cisco .
I 'm curious as to what compelled them to register a domain name way back in Nov 1986 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it surprising that Alcoa is so high up the list, beating out big computer and communications tech names such as AMD, 3COM, Apple, and Cisco.
I'm curious as to what compelled them to register a domain name way back in Nov 1986.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31489600</id>
	<title>Re:No ..</title>
	<author>digitalcowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1268656920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>The "Walled Gardens" of the 1990s (AOL, CompuServe, The Microsoft Network, etc) were just value-added content layers on top of services provided by the Internet and all included access to the World Wide Web.</em></p><p>I'm not sure if you're wrong about this or I've misunderstood what you're trying to say.  But (unfortunately) I wasted a couple months in the mid 90's doing (outsourced) tech support for CompuServe, after first discovering it on a Commodore VIC-20 in 1981 with a 300 baud "coupler" style modem that required a telephone handset to be firmly inserted.</p><p>I suspect you're not wrong, just imprecise and I'm being pedantic.  However, in the 90's, CompuServe was dying a slow death trying to keep a proprietary hold on something that had become an open commodity.  You're correct that <em>at that point</em> it had become a "value-added content [layer] on top of services provided by the Internet and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... included access to the World Wide Web."</p><p>It didn't start out that way and pre-dated any public access to the internet by more than a decade.  AOL came later as well as Prodigy and Apple's failed attempt at e-something or other.  (eWorld?  I'm too old to remember and too lazy to check it.)</p><p>None of them adapted well to the rapidly changing landscape.  What's more, when I was doing tech support for CS, it was owned by H&amp;R Block.  I joined in February and as tax day approached our internal network slowed to a crawl - as in:  click a button on the internal ticket system and wait <em>literally</em> 5 minutes for a response over the WAN.  It seems H&amp;R bought the company for the physical network because they only needed it for a few months a year.  As with most parasites, they quickly managed to kill the host.  (My "supervisors" kept saying, "Hang in there until April 16th and everything'll be back to normal.")</p><p>Not that the internet wouldn't have killed CS anyway, but the short-sightedness was amazing.</p><p>Now then.  About my lawn and your presence on it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " Walled Gardens " of the 1990s ( AOL , CompuServe , The Microsoft Network , etc ) were just value-added content layers on top of services provided by the Internet and all included access to the World Wide Web.I 'm not sure if you 're wrong about this or I 've misunderstood what you 're trying to say .
But ( unfortunately ) I wasted a couple months in the mid 90 's doing ( outsourced ) tech support for CompuServe , after first discovering it on a Commodore VIC-20 in 1981 with a 300 baud " coupler " style modem that required a telephone handset to be firmly inserted.I suspect you 're not wrong , just imprecise and I 'm being pedantic .
However , in the 90 's , CompuServe was dying a slow death trying to keep a proprietary hold on something that had become an open commodity .
You 're correct that at that point it had become a " value-added content [ layer ] on top of services provided by the Internet and ... included access to the World Wide Web .
" It did n't start out that way and pre-dated any public access to the internet by more than a decade .
AOL came later as well as Prodigy and Apple 's failed attempt at e-something or other .
( eWorld ? I 'm too old to remember and too lazy to check it .
) None of them adapted well to the rapidly changing landscape .
What 's more , when I was doing tech support for CS , it was owned by H&amp;R Block .
I joined in February and as tax day approached our internal network slowed to a crawl - as in : click a button on the internal ticket system and wait literally 5 minutes for a response over the WAN .
It seems H&amp;R bought the company for the physical network because they only needed it for a few months a year .
As with most parasites , they quickly managed to kill the host .
( My " supervisors " kept saying , " Hang in there until April 16th and everything 'll be back to normal .
" ) Not that the internet would n't have killed CS anyway , but the short-sightedness was amazing.Now then .
About my lawn and your presence on it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "Walled Gardens" of the 1990s (AOL, CompuServe, The Microsoft Network, etc) were just value-added content layers on top of services provided by the Internet and all included access to the World Wide Web.I'm not sure if you're wrong about this or I've misunderstood what you're trying to say.
But (unfortunately) I wasted a couple months in the mid 90's doing (outsourced) tech support for CompuServe, after first discovering it on a Commodore VIC-20 in 1981 with a 300 baud "coupler" style modem that required a telephone handset to be firmly inserted.I suspect you're not wrong, just imprecise and I'm being pedantic.
However, in the 90's, CompuServe was dying a slow death trying to keep a proprietary hold on something that had become an open commodity.
You're correct that at that point it had become a "value-added content [layer] on top of services provided by the Internet and ... included access to the World Wide Web.
"It didn't start out that way and pre-dated any public access to the internet by more than a decade.
AOL came later as well as Prodigy and Apple's failed attempt at e-something or other.
(eWorld?  I'm too old to remember and too lazy to check it.
)None of them adapted well to the rapidly changing landscape.
What's more, when I was doing tech support for CS, it was owned by H&amp;R Block.
I joined in February and as tax day approached our internal network slowed to a crawl - as in:  click a button on the internal ticket system and wait literally 5 minutes for a response over the WAN.
It seems H&amp;R bought the company for the physical network because they only needed it for a few months a year.
As with most parasites, they quickly managed to kill the host.
(My "supervisors" kept saying, "Hang in there until April 16th and everything'll be back to normal.
")Not that the internet wouldn't have killed CS anyway, but the short-sightedness was amazing.Now then.
About my lawn and your presence on it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31489118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488324</id>
	<title>Re:They should have kept the price high</title>
	<author>MrCawfee</author>
	<datestamp>1268649840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Godaddy had the 9.95 price point when their competition was ~25/yr, and it wasn't immediate.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.CO is the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.new<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.CM. I work at a registrar and almost all of our<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.CM registrations tend to be screened out using fake credit cards. Even after it goes live and the price point for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.CO is probally going to be ~60/yr, that is still too expensive for the "legitimate" squatter to put up their advertising pages. Judging from the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.CM registrations at my company that got through the screening process, they tend to be deleted within a few months when the credit card dispute comes through. The registry doesn't care because they have already gotten their registration fee. I'd say that atleast 50\% of our<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.CM registrations are screened out as fraud automatically, and the remainder are a mix between companies trying for brand protection and fraud.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.CO will never be a big legitimate tld, my feeling is that you are going to see:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; a)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.CO domains parked or forwarded by legitimate users for brand protection<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; b)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.CO domains parked by the registrar due to a chargeback so they can get atleast some of the money they lost back.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; c)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.CO domains parked by the client until the company that owns the name goes through the dispute process.</p><p>Bad thing for the internet, good thing for Columbia, good for .</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Godaddy had the 9.95 price point when their competition was ~ 25/yr , and it was n't immediate .
.CO is the .new .CM .
I work at a registrar and almost all of our .CM registrations tend to be screened out using fake credit cards .
Even after it goes live and the price point for .CO is probally going to be ~ 60/yr , that is still too expensive for the " legitimate " squatter to put up their advertising pages .
Judging from the .CM registrations at my company that got through the screening process , they tend to be deleted within a few months when the credit card dispute comes through .
The registry does n't care because they have already gotten their registration fee .
I 'd say that atleast 50 \ % of our .CM registrations are screened out as fraud automatically , and the remainder are a mix between companies trying for brand protection and fraud .
.CO will never be a big legitimate tld , my feeling is that you are going to see :     a ) .CO domains parked or forwarded by legitimate users for brand protection     b ) .CO domains parked by the registrar due to a chargeback so they can get atleast some of the money they lost back .
    c ) .CO domains parked by the client until the company that owns the name goes through the dispute process.Bad thing for the internet , good thing for Columbia , good for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Godaddy had the 9.95 price point when their competition was ~25/yr, and it wasn't immediate.
.CO is the .new .CM.
I work at a registrar and almost all of our .CM registrations tend to be screened out using fake credit cards.
Even after it goes live and the price point for .CO is probally going to be ~60/yr, that is still too expensive for the "legitimate" squatter to put up their advertising pages.
Judging from the .CM registrations at my company that got through the screening process, they tend to be deleted within a few months when the credit card dispute comes through.
The registry doesn't care because they have already gotten their registration fee.
I'd say that atleast 50\% of our .CM registrations are screened out as fraud automatically, and the remainder are a mix between companies trying for brand protection and fraud.
.CO will never be a big legitimate tld, my feeling is that you are going to see:
    a) .CO domains parked or forwarded by legitimate users for brand protection
    b) .CO domains parked by the registrar due to a chargeback so they can get atleast some of the money they lost back.
    c) .CO domains parked by the client until the company that owns the name goes through the dispute process.Bad thing for the internet, good thing for Columbia, good for .</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31492950</id>
	<title>tiffany</title>
	<author>BillMike</author>
	<datestamp>1268734260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law<nobr> <wbr></nobr>::: Love is the law, love under will.
Tiffany Bracelets for the best prices, guaranteed! Tiffany provides the best Tiffany &amp; Co Sterling Silver Bracelets to our customers at the
<a href="http://www.mytiffanycvs.com/" title="mytiffanycvs.com" rel="nofollow">Tiffany NeckLaces</a> [mytiffanycvs.com]
<a href="http://www.mytiffanycvs.com/" title="mytiffanycvs.com" rel="nofollow">Tiffany Rings</a> [mytiffanycvs.com]
<a href="http://www.mytiffanycvs.com/" title="mytiffanycvs.com" rel="nofollow">Tiffany Gift</a> [mytiffanycvs.com]
<a href="http://www.mytiffanycvs.com/" title="mytiffanycvs.com" rel="nofollow">Wholesale tiffany jewelry</a> [mytiffanycvs.com]
<a href="http://www.mytiffanycvs.com/" title="mytiffanycvs.com" rel="nofollow">Cheap tiffany jewelry</a> [mytiffanycvs.com]
<a href="http://www.mytiffanycvs.com/" title="mytiffanycvs.com" rel="nofollow">Discount tiffany jewelry</a> [mytiffanycvs.com]
<a href="http://www.mytiffanycvs.com/" title="mytiffanycvs.com" rel="nofollow"> </a> [mytiffanycvs.com]<a href="http://www.mytiffanycvs.com/" title="mytiffanycvs.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.mytiffanycvs.com/</a> [mytiffanycvs.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law : : : Love is the law , love under will .
Tiffany Bracelets for the best prices , guaranteed !
Tiffany provides the best Tiffany &amp; Co Sterling Silver Bracelets to our customers at the Tiffany NeckLaces [ mytiffanycvs.com ] Tiffany Rings [ mytiffanycvs.com ] Tiffany Gift [ mytiffanycvs.com ] Wholesale tiffany jewelry [ mytiffanycvs.com ] Cheap tiffany jewelry [ mytiffanycvs.com ] Discount tiffany jewelry [ mytiffanycvs.com ] [ mytiffanycvs.com ] http : //www.mytiffanycvs.com/ [ mytiffanycvs.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will.
Tiffany Bracelets for the best prices, guaranteed!
Tiffany provides the best Tiffany &amp; Co Sterling Silver Bracelets to our customers at the
Tiffany NeckLaces [mytiffanycvs.com]
Tiffany Rings [mytiffanycvs.com]
Tiffany Gift [mytiffanycvs.com]
Wholesale tiffany jewelry [mytiffanycvs.com]
Cheap tiffany jewelry [mytiffanycvs.com]
Discount tiffany jewelry [mytiffanycvs.com]
  [mytiffanycvs.com]http://www.mytiffanycvs.com/ [mytiffanycvs.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31489342</id>
	<title>Re:Northrup == oldest surviving?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268655240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RAY.COM - where this post is entering the intertubes now.</p><p>Oops; time to hit the road for home.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RAY.COM - where this post is entering the intertubes now.Oops ; time to hit the road for home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RAY.COM - where this post is entering the intertubes now.Oops; time to hit the road for home.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488350</id>
	<title>Re:mcc.com?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268649900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I assume these guys, who I desperately wanted to work for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microelectronics\_and\_Computer\_Technology\_Corporation</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I assume these guys , who I desperately wanted to work for : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microelectronics \ _and \ _Computer \ _Technology \ _Corporation</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I assume these guys, who I desperately wanted to work for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microelectronics\_and\_Computer\_Technology\_Corporation</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31487900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488774</id>
	<title>Sad Irony</title>
	<author>Wowlapalooza</author>
	<datestamp>1268652000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>88. 	03-Sep-1987 	SCO.COM</p></div><p>SCO could probably make far more by selling their "top 100" domain name -- to then be used for a website ridiculing/lambasting Darl McBride <i>et al</i> -- then they could ever hope to make litigating over their dubious-at-best intellectual property claims...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>88 .
03-Sep-1987 SCO.COMSCO could probably make far more by selling their " top 100 " domain name -- to then be used for a website ridiculing/lambasting Darl McBride et al -- then they could ever hope to make litigating over their dubious-at-best intellectual property claims.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>88.
03-Sep-1987 	SCO.COMSCO could probably make far more by selling their "top 100" domain name -- to then be used for a website ridiculing/lambasting Darl McBride et al -- then they could ever hope to make litigating over their dubious-at-best intellectual property claims...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31494348</id>
	<title>54. DG.COM</title>
	<author>Peter Simpson</author>
	<datestamp>1268749500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah!</p><p>Those were the good old days...before firewalls...when your desktop workstation has an external IP address.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah ! Those were the good old days...before firewalls...when your desktop workstation has an external IP address .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah!Those were the good old days...before firewalls...when your desktop workstation has an external IP address.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31487968</id>
	<title>threadjack</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268648340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>for several years there was an open genera than ran on alphas, and now apparently<br>a mysterious virtual version that is hosted by linux. does anyone know what happened<br>to the genera ip?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>for several years there was an open genera than ran on alphas , and now apparentlya mysterious virtual version that is hosted by linux .
does anyone know what happenedto the genera ip ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for several years there was an open genera than ran on alphas, and now apparentlya mysterious virtual version that is hosted by linux.
does anyone know what happenedto the genera ip?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488840</id>
	<title>stats are wrong</title>
	<author>darthcamaro</author>
	<datestamp>1268652360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>the people that put on this study have some wrong stats.

According to VeriSign's own data <a href="http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3867566/Domain+Name+Registrations+Kept+Growing+in+2009.htm" title="internetnews.com"> there are just over 192 million domain names registered now</a> [internetnews.com]. No idea where that figure of 250 million came from but it's not correct.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the people that put on this study have some wrong stats .
According to VeriSign 's own data there are just over 192 million domain names registered now [ internetnews.com ] .
No idea where that figure of 250 million came from but it 's not correct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the people that put on this study have some wrong stats.
According to VeriSign's own data  there are just over 192 million domain names registered now [internetnews.com].
No idea where that figure of 250 million came from but it's not correct.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31487920</id>
	<title>No ..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268648220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No microsoft.com ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No microsoft.com ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No microsoft.com ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488242</id>
	<title>Re:No ..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268649420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ugh, go back to grade school, kid, and the same to whoever modded you interesting.  Compuserve and AOL were doing a pretty good job of making their closed networks the defining online experience years before the Internet started eating their lunch.  M$ wasn't even in the picture.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ugh , go back to grade school , kid , and the same to whoever modded you interesting .
Compuserve and AOL were doing a pretty good job of making their closed networks the defining online experience years before the Internet started eating their lunch .
M $ was n't even in the picture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ugh, go back to grade school, kid, and the same to whoever modded you interesting.
Compuserve and AOL were doing a pretty good job of making their closed networks the defining online experience years before the Internet started eating their lunch.
M$ wasn't even in the picture.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31489118</id>
	<title>Re:No ..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268654040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not quite so true, I'm afraid.<br>
<br>
Whilst Microsoft was late to the party (we're talking early-1990s) they never had the impression they could supplant the Internet with something proprietary.<br>
<br>
The "Walled Gardens" of the 1990s (AOL, CompuServe, The Microsoft Network, etc) were just value-added content layers on top of services provided by the Internet and all included access to the World Wide Web.<br>
<br>
So basically MSN (the original one) was Microsoft's competitor to AOL and not "The Internet".<br>
<br>
Microsoft didn't include TCP/IP in early versions of Windows because there just wasn't any demand, and third-parties were already making their own add-ons that provided this. Much the same reason IPv6 wasn't added to Windows until Vista even though IPv6's specifications were stable enough by the release of XP SP2 in 2005. I'm sure they had better things at the time for their developers to work on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not quite so true , I 'm afraid .
Whilst Microsoft was late to the party ( we 're talking early-1990s ) they never had the impression they could supplant the Internet with something proprietary .
The " Walled Gardens " of the 1990s ( AOL , CompuServe , The Microsoft Network , etc ) were just value-added content layers on top of services provided by the Internet and all included access to the World Wide Web .
So basically MSN ( the original one ) was Microsoft 's competitor to AOL and not " The Internet " .
Microsoft did n't include TCP/IP in early versions of Windows because there just was n't any demand , and third-parties were already making their own add-ons that provided this .
Much the same reason IPv6 was n't added to Windows until Vista even though IPv6 's specifications were stable enough by the release of XP SP2 in 2005 .
I 'm sure they had better things at the time for their developers to work on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not quite so true, I'm afraid.
Whilst Microsoft was late to the party (we're talking early-1990s) they never had the impression they could supplant the Internet with something proprietary.
The "Walled Gardens" of the 1990s (AOL, CompuServe, The Microsoft Network, etc) were just value-added content layers on top of services provided by the Internet and all included access to the World Wide Web.
So basically MSN (the original one) was Microsoft's competitor to AOL and not "The Internet".
Microsoft didn't include TCP/IP in early versions of Windows because there just wasn't any demand, and third-parties were already making their own add-ons that provided this.
Much the same reason IPv6 wasn't added to Windows until Vista even though IPv6's specifications were stable enough by the release of XP SP2 in 2005.
I'm sure they had better things at the time for their developers to work on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488606</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting and maybe humbling</title>
	<author>nextekcarl</author>
	<datestamp>1268651160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what you're saying is I should never let you interview for any position I offer? Did you do something to anger a Gypsy or something?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what you 're saying is I should never let you interview for any position I offer ?
Did you do something to anger a Gypsy or something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what you're saying is I should never let you interview for any position I offer?
Did you do something to anger a Gypsy or something?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31490592</id>
	<title>Tandy before Apple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268662680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it humorous that Tandy.com was registered before apple.com.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it humorous that Tandy.com was registered before apple.com .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it humorous that Tandy.com was registered before apple.com.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31489084</id>
	<title>53 billion websites???</title>
	<author>david.emery</author>
	<datestamp>1268653860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>At the moment Verisign logs 53 billion requests for websites - not just dotcoms - every day, about the same number handled for all of 1995.<br>"We expect that to grow in 2020 to somewhere between three and four quadrillion," Mr McLaughlin told BBC News.</i></p><p>How do we interpret this?  I sure hope this is DNS lookups.  But if so, doesn't it bother anyone else that the Verisign CEO said "53 billion requests for websites" as opposed to "53 billion requests for domain name resolution."  God help us if this means 53 billion different DOMAINS; how many of them are Botnet controllers?</p><p>I'm just waiting for the sign in front of Verisign HQ, "Over 53 billion websites served every day"...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At the moment Verisign logs 53 billion requests for websites - not just dotcoms - every day , about the same number handled for all of 1995 .
" We expect that to grow in 2020 to somewhere between three and four quadrillion , " Mr McLaughlin told BBC News.How do we interpret this ?
I sure hope this is DNS lookups .
But if so , does n't it bother anyone else that the Verisign CEO said " 53 billion requests for websites " as opposed to " 53 billion requests for domain name resolution .
" God help us if this means 53 billion different DOMAINS ; how many of them are Botnet controllers ? I 'm just waiting for the sign in front of Verisign HQ , " Over 53 billion websites served every day " .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the moment Verisign logs 53 billion requests for websites - not just dotcoms - every day, about the same number handled for all of 1995.
"We expect that to grow in 2020 to somewhere between three and four quadrillion," Mr McLaughlin told BBC News.How do we interpret this?
I sure hope this is DNS lookups.
But if so, doesn't it bother anyone else that the Verisign CEO said "53 billion requests for websites" as opposed to "53 billion requests for domain name resolution.
"  God help us if this means 53 billion different DOMAINS; how many of them are Botnet controllers?I'm just waiting for the sign in front of Verisign HQ, "Over 53 billion websites served every day"...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31490154</id>
	<title>Coincidence</title>
	<author>suso</author>
	<datestamp>1268659920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting, I just did a two letter combination scan of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com TLD today. Yeah, I do that kind of stuff for fun.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting , I just did a two letter combination scan of the .com TLD today .
Yeah , I do that kind of stuff for fun .
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting, I just did a two letter combination scan of the .com TLD today.
Yeah, I do that kind of stuff for fun.
;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31487878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488714</id>
	<title>Stock performance</title>
	<author>bobdotorg</author>
	<datestamp>1268651760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm curious how the publicly traded stocks of the early adopters fared from time of registration until the peak of the dotcom bubble in March 2000.  I suspect abnormally high returns relative to Nasdaq or the S&amp;P500.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm curious how the publicly traded stocks of the early adopters fared from time of registration until the peak of the dotcom bubble in March 2000 .
I suspect abnormally high returns relative to Nasdaq or the S&amp;P500 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm curious how the publicly traded stocks of the early adopters fared from time of registration until the peak of the dotcom bubble in March 2000.
I suspect abnormally high returns relative to Nasdaq or the S&amp;P500.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31489060</id>
	<title>Re:No ..</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1268653680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No no no you blithering idiot!</p><p>Compuserve and AOL were doing a pretty good job of making their closed networks the defining online experience years before the Internet started eating their lunch. M$ wasn't even in the picture.</p><p>How wrong could you possibly be?!?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No no no you blithering idiot ! Compuserve and AOL were doing a pretty good job of making their closed networks the defining online experience years before the Internet started eating their lunch .
M $ was n't even in the picture.How wrong could you possibly be ? !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No no no you blithering idiot!Compuserve and AOL were doing a pretty good job of making their closed networks the defining online experience years before the Internet started eating their lunch.
M$ wasn't even in the picture.How wrong could you possibly be?!
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31491172</id>
	<title>Old Website</title>
	<author>Lord\_Jeremy</author>
	<datestamp>1268666940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not sure how true it is, but my Computer Science/Calculus BC teacher claims to have one of the first webpages put up on the internet. I would tend to believe him, as he is quite the CS wiz and he tends to be really current. Although looking at his webpage now I think he just got lazy and didn't feel like updating the layout. In any case it currently resides over at <a href="http://calcpage.tripod.com/" title="tripod.com" rel="nofollow">http://calcpage.tripod.com/</a> [tripod.com]. As the story goes it started out on a researchers network after a friend at some institute that I forget the name of told him about this crazy new thing called the internet. He's also the most innovative teacher in the school, for what it's worth. He's the only one that manages to make full use of the stuff from SMART Technologies that was just installed, taking video of his lessons recorded from the SMART system so students can catch up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure how true it is , but my Computer Science/Calculus BC teacher claims to have one of the first webpages put up on the internet .
I would tend to believe him , as he is quite the CS wiz and he tends to be really current .
Although looking at his webpage now I think he just got lazy and did n't feel like updating the layout .
In any case it currently resides over at http : //calcpage.tripod.com/ [ tripod.com ] .
As the story goes it started out on a researchers network after a friend at some institute that I forget the name of told him about this crazy new thing called the internet .
He 's also the most innovative teacher in the school , for what it 's worth .
He 's the only one that manages to make full use of the stuff from SMART Technologies that was just installed , taking video of his lessons recorded from the SMART system so students can catch up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure how true it is, but my Computer Science/Calculus BC teacher claims to have one of the first webpages put up on the internet.
I would tend to believe him, as he is quite the CS wiz and he tends to be really current.
Although looking at his webpage now I think he just got lazy and didn't feel like updating the layout.
In any case it currently resides over at http://calcpage.tripod.com/ [tripod.com].
As the story goes it started out on a researchers network after a friend at some institute that I forget the name of told him about this crazy new thing called the internet.
He's also the most innovative teacher in the school, for what it's worth.
He's the only one that manages to make full use of the stuff from SMART Technologies that was just installed, taking video of his lessons recorded from the SMART system so students can catch up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488640</id>
	<title>Sky news and bad reporting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268651280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was watching Sky News today and the tech correspondent reported it was 25 years ago since Tim Burners-Lee invented the Internet. Ugh.</p><p><a href="https://twitter.com/simonhowes/status/10514026928" title="twitter.com">https://twitter.com/simonhowes/status/10514026928</a> [twitter.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was watching Sky News today and the tech correspondent reported it was 25 years ago since Tim Burners-Lee invented the Internet .
Ugh.https : //twitter.com/simonhowes/status/10514026928 [ twitter.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was watching Sky News today and the tech correspondent reported it was 25 years ago since Tim Burners-Lee invented the Internet.
Ugh.https://twitter.com/simonhowes/status/10514026928 [twitter.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31493930</id>
	<title>Re:They should have kept the price high</title>
	<author>houghi</author>
	<datestamp>1268747280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They should never have gone with the generic domain names. nstead just the country names. That would ahve been *.us for the USA. "What about debian.org" you might ask or shlashdot.org? They would have been debian.org.us.<br>"But that is not international!" you might moan. Well, neither is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.org. Basically they are US domains. So instead of a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com, people or companies would have a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com.us name.</p><p>Even names like nato.int should be registerd in each country that wants it.</p><p>It would then be up to each country (just as it is now) if they would accept registration from other countries or not and what other restrictions (or not) they would want.  That way each country can device their subdomain to whatever they desire.</p><p>Obviously this will never happen now, so it is only an afterthought.</p><p>Also as an afterthought reversing the order would be much more logic, so instead of having example.com.us you would have us.com.example or even<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/us/com/example. That way the comments page for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. would be <a href="http://us/com/slashdot/tech/comments.pl" title="us">http://us/com/slashdot/tech/comments.pl</a> [us]</p><p>With the current DNS system that won't work for obvious reasons, but it would have been nice. Again just as an afterthought. I am sure that many people will see issues as they will compare it with what we have now. However if we would have started with the above, we would have found solutions to any issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They should never have gone with the generic domain names .
nstead just the country names .
That would ahve been * .us for the USA .
" What about debian.org " you might ask or shlashdot.org ?
They would have been debian.org.us .
" But that is not international !
" you might moan .
Well , neither is .com , .net or .org .
Basically they are US domains .
So instead of a .com , people or companies would have a .com.us name.Even names like nato.int should be registerd in each country that wants it.It would then be up to each country ( just as it is now ) if they would accept registration from other countries or not and what other restrictions ( or not ) they would want .
That way each country can device their subdomain to whatever they desire.Obviously this will never happen now , so it is only an afterthought.Also as an afterthought reversing the order would be much more logic , so instead of having example.com.us you would have us.com.example or even /us/com/example .
That way the comments page for / .
would be http : //us/com/slashdot/tech/comments.pl [ us ] With the current DNS system that wo n't work for obvious reasons , but it would have been nice .
Again just as an afterthought .
I am sure that many people will see issues as they will compare it with what we have now .
However if we would have started with the above , we would have found solutions to any issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should never have gone with the generic domain names.
nstead just the country names.
That would ahve been *.us for the USA.
"What about debian.org" you might ask or shlashdot.org?
They would have been debian.org.us.
"But that is not international!
" you might moan.
Well, neither is .com, .net or .org.
Basically they are US domains.
So instead of a .com, people or companies would have a .com.us name.Even names like nato.int should be registerd in each country that wants it.It would then be up to each country (just as it is now) if they would accept registration from other countries or not and what other restrictions (or not) they would want.
That way each country can device their subdomain to whatever they desire.Obviously this will never happen now, so it is only an afterthought.Also as an afterthought reversing the order would be much more logic, so instead of having example.com.us you would have us.com.example or even /us/com/example.
That way the comments page for /.
would be http://us/com/slashdot/tech/comments.pl [us]With the current DNS system that won't work for obvious reasons, but it would have been nice.
Again just as an afterthought.
I am sure that many people will see issues as they will compare it with what we have now.
However if we would have started with the above, we would have found solutions to any issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488758</id>
	<title>Why is Slashdot not a .com?</title>
	<author>mister\_playboy</author>
	<datestamp>1268651880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This story makes me wonder... does anyone know why<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. is a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.org and not a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This story makes me wonder... does anyone know why / .
is a .org and not a .com ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This story makes me wonder... does anyone know why /.
is a .org and not a .com?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488524</id>
	<title>Re:They should have kept the price high</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268650800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>urm, domain names were free.  all it took was an email.  Geek card please.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>urm , domain names were free .
all it took was an email .
Geek card please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>urm, domain names were free.
all it took was an email.
Geek card please.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31490384</id>
	<title>No sex.com?!?</title>
	<author>courteaudotbiz</author>
	<datestamp>1268661300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Damn, those first Internet geeks are not like today's geeks!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn , those first Internet geeks are not like today 's geeks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn, those first Internet geeks are not like today's geeks!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488216</id>
	<title>Symbolics Open Genera?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268649300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read the other day on Wikipedia that "older versions of the [Genera] are available as free software." Anyone know if there's a way to get a hold of such a distribution and run it under some kind of emulator?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read the other day on Wikipedia that " older versions of the [ Genera ] are available as free software .
" Anyone know if there 's a way to get a hold of such a distribution and run it under some kind of emulator ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read the other day on Wikipedia that "older versions of the [Genera] are available as free software.
" Anyone know if there's a way to get a hold of such a distribution and run it under some kind of emulator?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488954</id>
	<title>Northrup == oldest surviving?</title>
	<author>kclittle</author>
	<datestamp>1268653080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Looking at that oldest-100 list, it would appear that Northrup is the oldest surviving ".COM" TLD (they were the acquirer in the Grumman deal).<br>Ah, DEC, we knew ye well...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Looking at that oldest-100 list , it would appear that Northrup is the oldest surviving " .COM " TLD ( they were the acquirer in the Grumman deal ) .Ah , DEC , we knew ye well.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looking at that oldest-100 list, it would appear that Northrup is the oldest surviving ".COM" TLD (they were the acquirer in the Grumman deal).Ah, DEC, we knew ye well...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488478</id>
	<title>Re:They should have kept the price high</title>
	<author>HaeMaker</author>
	<datestamp>1268650560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't remember it being $100.  When I registered hae.com, it was $30 one time to my ISP (InterNIC didn't charge) to setup the domain, DNS, and sendmail.  Other ISPs charged per month to maintain the domain, so it was a good deal.  This was back in the mid 90s when it was fashionable to get a "vanity plate" domain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't remember it being $ 100 .
When I registered hae.com , it was $ 30 one time to my ISP ( InterNIC did n't charge ) to setup the domain , DNS , and sendmail .
Other ISPs charged per month to maintain the domain , so it was a good deal .
This was back in the mid 90s when it was fashionable to get a " vanity plate " domain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't remember it being $100.
When I registered hae.com, it was $30 one time to my ISP (InterNIC didn't charge) to setup the domain, DNS, and sendmail.
Other ISPs charged per month to maintain the domain, so it was a good deal.
This was back in the mid 90s when it was fashionable to get a "vanity plate" domain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488206</id>
	<title>Teh man</title>
	<author>Notegg Nornoggin</author>
	<datestamp>1268649240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>teh man got <b> <i> <em>WOOWOOWOO.NIGGER.COM</em> </i> </b>, iant it so bruthars?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>teh man got WOOWOOWOO.NIGGER.COM , iant it so bruthars ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>teh man got   WOOWOOWOO.NIGGER.COM  , iant it so bruthars?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31491988</id>
	<title>Re:No ..</title>
	<author>pipingguy</author>
	<datestamp>1268674920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sheesh, memory lane. I was no early adopter, but I remember my 14.4 modem-equipped 486DX66 connecting to CompuServe. Then I discovered the REAL internet via Matrox's Spherenet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sheesh , memory lane .
I was no early adopter , but I remember my 14.4 modem-equipped 486DX66 connecting to CompuServe .
Then I discovered the REAL internet via Matrox 's Spherenet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sheesh, memory lane.
I was no early adopter, but I remember my 14.4 modem-equipped 486DX66 connecting to CompuServe.
Then I discovered the REAL internet via Matrox's Spherenet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31489118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31489512</id>
	<title>Re:No ..</title>
	<author>Daniel Dvorkin</author>
	<datestamp>1268656440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The "Walled Gardens" of the 1990s (AOL, CompuServe, The Microsoft Network, etc) were just value-added content layers on top of services provided by the Internet</p></div><p>No, they weren't.  AOL and CompuServe, and most of the other online services (not sure about MSN) ran their own proprietary networks, using non-IP protocols.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>and all included access to the World Wide Web.</p></div><p>Eventually, yes, but they didn't start out doing that.  They <b>all</b> wanted to be The Future Of Online Services, and hoped the internet would go away quietly, or at least stay restricted to educational and government use.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The " Walled Gardens " of the 1990s ( AOL , CompuServe , The Microsoft Network , etc ) were just value-added content layers on top of services provided by the InternetNo , they were n't .
AOL and CompuServe , and most of the other online services ( not sure about MSN ) ran their own proprietary networks , using non-IP protocols.and all included access to the World Wide Web.Eventually , yes , but they did n't start out doing that .
They all wanted to be The Future Of Online Services , and hoped the internet would go away quietly , or at least stay restricted to educational and government use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "Walled Gardens" of the 1990s (AOL, CompuServe, The Microsoft Network, etc) were just value-added content layers on top of services provided by the InternetNo, they weren't.
AOL and CompuServe, and most of the other online services (not sure about MSN) ran their own proprietary networks, using non-IP protocols.and all included access to the World Wide Web.Eventually, yes, but they didn't start out doing that.
They all wanted to be The Future Of Online Services, and hoped the internet would go away quietly, or at least stay restricted to educational and government use.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31489118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488168</id>
	<title>Interesting things about that list</title>
	<author>Yvan256</author>
	<datestamp>1268649060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Both AMD and Intel are on the list, along with many hardware companies.<br><br>Funny:<br>- Apple,  IBM and Sun are present<br>- Microsoft is absent<br><br>Strangely missing:<br>- sex.com<br>- porn.com<br>(etc)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Both AMD and Intel are on the list , along with many hardware companies.Funny : - Apple , IBM and Sun are present- Microsoft is absentStrangely missing : - sex.com- porn.com ( etc )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both AMD and Intel are on the list, along with many hardware companies.Funny:- Apple,  IBM and Sun are present- Microsoft is absentStrangely missing:- sex.com- porn.com(etc)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488710</id>
	<title>F\_uc4!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268651760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">to have regular marketing surveys the top. Or were, go find something One or the 0ther and as BSD sinks Assholes, as they the aacounting and Michael Smith</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>to have regular marketing surveys the top .
Or were , go find something One or the 0ther and as BSD sinks Assholes , as they the aacounting and Michael Smith [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to have regular marketing surveys the top.
Or were, go find something One or the 0ther and as BSD sinks Assholes, as they the aacounting and Michael Smith [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31501884</id>
	<title>pyramid.com?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268736420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What comes up is not The Artist Formerly Known as Pyramid Technology in Mountain View, CA.  It's some PC accessory store.  Should that really count?</p><p>IMPLing...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What comes up is not The Artist Formerly Known as Pyramid Technology in Mountain View , CA .
It 's some PC accessory store .
Should that really count ? IMPLing.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What comes up is not The Artist Formerly Known as Pyramid Technology in Mountain View, CA.
It's some PC accessory store.
Should that really count?IMPLing...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488444</id>
	<title>Re:mcc.com?</title>
	<author>toastar</author>
	<datestamp>1268650440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Who were they?</p></div><p> <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/19970214020411/http://www.mcc.com/" title="archive.org">http://web.archive.org/web/19970214020411/http://www.mcc.com/</a> [archive.org]</p><p>the internet archive rocks!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who were they ?
http : //web.archive.org/web/19970214020411/http : //www.mcc.com/ [ archive.org ] the internet archive rocks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who were they?
http://web.archive.org/web/19970214020411/http://www.mcc.com/ [archive.org]the internet archive rocks!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31487900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488012</id>
	<title>Interesting and maybe humbling</title>
	<author>93 Escort Wagon</author>
	<datestamp>1268648520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I felt a bit old, and maybe a bit humbled, to see a number of smallish Pacific Northwest companies that are on that list but no longer exist. When I first got out of college I'd interviewed at some of those places!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I felt a bit old , and maybe a bit humbled , to see a number of smallish Pacific Northwest companies that are on that list but no longer exist .
When I first got out of college I 'd interviewed at some of those places !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I felt a bit old, and maybe a bit humbled, to see a number of smallish Pacific Northwest companies that are on that list but no longer exist.
When I first got out of college I'd interviewed at some of those places!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31489788</id>
	<title>Many defense related</title>
	<author>digitalcowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1268657880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just an observation...</p><p>A significant proportion of those first 100 are defense contractors or otherwise related to the DOD.  That's not a shock; indeed it makes sense.  But it jumped out at me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just an observation...A significant proportion of those first 100 are defense contractors or otherwise related to the DOD .
That 's not a shock ; indeed it makes sense .
But it jumped out at me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just an observation...A significant proportion of those first 100 are defense contractors or otherwise related to the DOD.
That's not a shock; indeed it makes sense.
But it jumped out at me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488248</id>
	<title>Close to celebrating the enslavement of humanity.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268649480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back in 1913 when the Jews (international bankers with no country or laws to abide to) stole the country from Americans courtesy of the traitor Woodrow Wilson in exchange for the money he needed to purchase the election. Since then, the propaganda of worshiping the true Jew god, money, has spread across the world over not only enslaving every single human being but putting many to the grave (over 10 times more than the claims from their exaggerated untrue holocaust fairy tale) but also putting a near complete stop on technological progression along with medical progression.</p><p>Worship your Jew overlords ignorant cattle, for they care not about you and your family so long as they remain part of the 1\% in the world who have everything while ignorant blind retards such as the majority of the 99\% turn a blind eye to their blatant lies and swallow their propaganda hook, line and sinker.</p><p>At least you get to have your tongue used as toilet paper for your Jew masters and the house niggers get to fight over the scraps from the scraps Jews throw to dogs. What a life, you geniuses! Hopefully the poor you and your Jew overlord Masters shit on will never figure out they are the true overwhelming majority and they have options left to fight back on the way out since they are condemned to misery and pain and suffering anyway. I mean look at the French Revolution, what can the poor really accomplish once they figure out what is happening at purely their expense?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in 1913 when the Jews ( international bankers with no country or laws to abide to ) stole the country from Americans courtesy of the traitor Woodrow Wilson in exchange for the money he needed to purchase the election .
Since then , the propaganda of worshiping the true Jew god , money , has spread across the world over not only enslaving every single human being but putting many to the grave ( over 10 times more than the claims from their exaggerated untrue holocaust fairy tale ) but also putting a near complete stop on technological progression along with medical progression.Worship your Jew overlords ignorant cattle , for they care not about you and your family so long as they remain part of the 1 \ % in the world who have everything while ignorant blind retards such as the majority of the 99 \ % turn a blind eye to their blatant lies and swallow their propaganda hook , line and sinker.At least you get to have your tongue used as toilet paper for your Jew masters and the house niggers get to fight over the scraps from the scraps Jews throw to dogs .
What a life , you geniuses !
Hopefully the poor you and your Jew overlord Masters shit on will never figure out they are the true overwhelming majority and they have options left to fight back on the way out since they are condemned to misery and pain and suffering anyway .
I mean look at the French Revolution , what can the poor really accomplish once they figure out what is happening at purely their expense ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in 1913 when the Jews (international bankers with no country or laws to abide to) stole the country from Americans courtesy of the traitor Woodrow Wilson in exchange for the money he needed to purchase the election.
Since then, the propaganda of worshiping the true Jew god, money, has spread across the world over not only enslaving every single human being but putting many to the grave (over 10 times more than the claims from their exaggerated untrue holocaust fairy tale) but also putting a near complete stop on technological progression along with medical progression.Worship your Jew overlords ignorant cattle, for they care not about you and your family so long as they remain part of the 1\% in the world who have everything while ignorant blind retards such as the majority of the 99\% turn a blind eye to their blatant lies and swallow their propaganda hook, line and sinker.At least you get to have your tongue used as toilet paper for your Jew masters and the house niggers get to fight over the scraps from the scraps Jews throw to dogs.
What a life, you geniuses!
Hopefully the poor you and your Jew overlord Masters shit on will never figure out they are the true overwhelming majority and they have options left to fight back on the way out since they are condemned to misery and pain and suffering anyway.
I mean look at the French Revolution, what can the poor really accomplish once they figure out what is happening at purely their expense?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31493554</id>
	<title>Re:No ..</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1268742960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the eighties, are you kidding?  Microsoft was still selling DOS.  Networking, even at the LAN level,  hadn't even occurred to them yet.  People with modems (a small minority) could dial a BBS...</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the eighties , are you kidding ?
Microsoft was still selling DOS .
Networking , even at the LAN level , had n't even occurred to them yet .
People with modems ( a small minority ) could dial a BBS.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the eighties, are you kidding?
Microsoft was still selling DOS.
Networking, even at the LAN level,  hadn't even occurred to them yet.
People with modems (a small minority) could dial a BBS...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31487920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488452</id>
	<title>Re:They should have kept the price high</title>
	<author>fragmentate</author>
	<datestamp>1268650440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who should have kept the price high?  InterNIC?  So, the booty of the late 90's, and now the early 21st century is a bad thing?  Rather than snarl at the squatters, they should have made squatting less attractive by allowing more TLDs.  A lot of people might be pleased that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx will be opening up soon.  Imagine the possibilities now!

se.xxx sells.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who should have kept the price high ?
InterNIC ? So , the booty of the late 90 's , and now the early 21st century is a bad thing ?
Rather than snarl at the squatters , they should have made squatting less attractive by allowing more TLDs .
A lot of people might be pleased that .xxx will be opening up soon .
Imagine the possibilities now !
se.xxx sells .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who should have kept the price high?
InterNIC?  So, the booty of the late 90's, and now the early 21st century is a bad thing?
Rather than snarl at the squatters, they should have made squatting less attractive by allowing more TLDs.
A lot of people might be pleased that .xxx will be opening up soon.
Imagine the possibilities now!
se.xxx sells.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31493076</id>
	<title>What does the "g" (in gTLD) denote?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268735940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Subj asks it all... if you know the answer, kindly post it in a reply, thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Subj asks it all... if you know the answer , kindly post it in a reply , thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Subj asks it all... if you know the answer, kindly post it in a reply, thanks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31489470</id>
	<title>Re:Alcoa is 40th oldest?!</title>
	<author>vikingpower</author>
	<datestamp>1268656260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Alcoa has always been known for its aggressive investigation and then pushing of new technologies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Alcoa has always been known for its aggressive investigation and then pushing of new technologies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alcoa has always been known for its aggressive investigation and then pushing of new technologies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31491650</id>
	<title>Re:No ..</title>
	<author>SgtAaron</author>
	<datestamp>1268671200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I remember having to install Trumpet or WinSocket or whatever the name was, just to add TCP/IP to Windows 3.11 so I could browse websites.</p></div><p>Close! Strange how memory works.  Put those two together and you get "Trumpet Winsock".  You just tickled a few memories:  I remember I was really happy to buy Win95 so I wouldn't have to deal with Trumpet Winsock anymore.  Well, and let's face it, it was an improvement to 3.11, but really I think my packard hell computer ran the older much faster than the new, but networking was easier. Thanks to the internet I found slackware linux some few months later.  No more winsock.dll...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>As for the story topic, later I found out how much a racket network solutions was with their outrageous domain registration fees, and heard about this guy Aveek Datta and ml.org, which we would provide free domain names under ml.org for anybody.  Thousands and thousands signed up--clearly average people didn't want to pay $100+ for a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com name.  I helped run that for awhile, and it was a worthy cause in my book.  It was hard to like network solutions.  I couldn't have helped if I hadn't spent hours fixing my screwups in slackware, on a side note<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember having to install Trumpet or WinSocket or whatever the name was , just to add TCP/IP to Windows 3.11 so I could browse websites.Close !
Strange how memory works .
Put those two together and you get " Trumpet Winsock " .
You just tickled a few memories : I remember I was really happy to buy Win95 so I would n't have to deal with Trumpet Winsock anymore .
Well , and let 's face it , it was an improvement to 3.11 , but really I think my packard hell computer ran the older much faster than the new , but networking was easier .
Thanks to the internet I found slackware linux some few months later .
No more winsock.dll... : ) As for the story topic , later I found out how much a racket network solutions was with their outrageous domain registration fees , and heard about this guy Aveek Datta and ml.org , which we would provide free domain names under ml.org for anybody .
Thousands and thousands signed up--clearly average people did n't want to pay $ 100 + for a .com name .
I helped run that for awhile , and it was a worthy cause in my book .
It was hard to like network solutions .
I could n't have helped if I had n't spent hours fixing my screwups in slackware , on a side note : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember having to install Trumpet or WinSocket or whatever the name was, just to add TCP/IP to Windows 3.11 so I could browse websites.Close!
Strange how memory works.
Put those two together and you get "Trumpet Winsock".
You just tickled a few memories:  I remember I was really happy to buy Win95 so I wouldn't have to deal with Trumpet Winsock anymore.
Well, and let's face it, it was an improvement to 3.11, but really I think my packard hell computer ran the older much faster than the new, but networking was easier.
Thanks to the internet I found slackware linux some few months later.
No more winsock.dll... :)As for the story topic, later I found out how much a racket network solutions was with their outrageous domain registration fees, and heard about this guy Aveek Datta and ml.org, which we would provide free domain names under ml.org for anybody.
Thousands and thousands signed up--clearly average people didn't want to pay $100+ for a .com name.
I helped run that for awhile, and it was a worthy cause in my book.
It was hard to like network solutions.
I couldn't have helped if I hadn't spent hours fixing my screwups in slackware, on a side note :)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488010</id>
	<title>They should have kept the price high</title>
	<author>Jazz-Masta</author>
	<datestamp>1268648520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When it was only InterNIC assigning domain names, it was $100/year, and then $70/year. I remember carefully choosing which domains to register - and so did everyone else. There were very few squatters back then.</p><p>I believe passing the torch to ICANN, and then having GoDaddy (Wild West) pop up offering $6<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.COM will be remembered as the ruin of the Internet. Not to mention the 2-3 day "evaluation" period where squatters could hold a domain without paying for it.</p><p>Now they've opened up<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.CO (Columbian) for non-Columbian registration. Pre-registration is $299, and the registrars are trying to push it as the next big TLD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When it was only InterNIC assigning domain names , it was $ 100/year , and then $ 70/year .
I remember carefully choosing which domains to register - and so did everyone else .
There were very few squatters back then.I believe passing the torch to ICANN , and then having GoDaddy ( Wild West ) pop up offering $ 6 .COM will be remembered as the ruin of the Internet .
Not to mention the 2-3 day " evaluation " period where squatters could hold a domain without paying for it.Now they 've opened up .CO ( Columbian ) for non-Columbian registration .
Pre-registration is $ 299 , and the registrars are trying to push it as the next big TLD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When it was only InterNIC assigning domain names, it was $100/year, and then $70/year.
I remember carefully choosing which domains to register - and so did everyone else.
There were very few squatters back then.I believe passing the torch to ICANN, and then having GoDaddy (Wild West) pop up offering $6 .COM will be remembered as the ruin of the Internet.
Not to mention the 2-3 day "evaluation" period where squatters could hold a domain without paying for it.Now they've opened up .CO (Columbian) for non-Columbian registration.
Pre-registration is $299, and the registrars are trying to push it as the next big TLD.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31487878</id>
	<title>tomato</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268648100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>tomato</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>tomato</tokentext>
<sentencetext>tomato</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488974</id>
	<title>Re:Why is Slashdot not a .com?</title>
	<author>icebraining</author>
	<datestamp>1268653200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I registered the domain name Slashdot.org as a joke. It was 'org' because I didn't want a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com -- those were so common. I always thought org would be cooler, and besides, I had no commercial plans in mind. (Years later this bit me on the ass since someone else registered the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com. Doh!) The URL was meant to be unpronounceable by anyone -- a joke ultimately that has backfired on me countless times when I'm called and asked what the URL is to the damn thing. Jeff 'Hemos' Bates (now a VP of something or other with SourceForge, Inc.) was in the living room when I was registering the domain name. We all wanted email addresses with a unique domain name that wasn't attached to our school, so he chipped in on the registration fee.</p></div> </blockquote><p><a href="http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/02/1553218" title="slashdot.org">A Brief History of Slashdot Part 1, Chips &amp; Dips</a> [slashdot.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I registered the domain name Slashdot.org as a joke .
It was 'org ' because I did n't want a .com -- those were so common .
I always thought org would be cooler , and besides , I had no commercial plans in mind .
( Years later this bit me on the ass since someone else registered the .com .
Doh ! ) The URL was meant to be unpronounceable by anyone -- a joke ultimately that has backfired on me countless times when I 'm called and asked what the URL is to the damn thing .
Jeff 'Hemos ' Bates ( now a VP of something or other with SourceForge , Inc. ) was in the living room when I was registering the domain name .
We all wanted email addresses with a unique domain name that was n't attached to our school , so he chipped in on the registration fee .
A Brief History of Slashdot Part 1 , Chips &amp; Dips [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I registered the domain name Slashdot.org as a joke.
It was 'org' because I didn't want a .com -- those were so common.
I always thought org would be cooler, and besides, I had no commercial plans in mind.
(Years later this bit me on the ass since someone else registered the .com.
Doh!) The URL was meant to be unpronounceable by anyone -- a joke ultimately that has backfired on me countless times when I'm called and asked what the URL is to the damn thing.
Jeff 'Hemos' Bates (now a VP of something or other with SourceForge, Inc.) was in the living room when I was registering the domain name.
We all wanted email addresses with a unique domain name that wasn't attached to our school, so he chipped in on the registration fee.
A Brief History of Slashdot Part 1, Chips &amp; Dips [slashdot.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488060</id>
	<title>Re:No ..</title>
	<author>Yvan256</author>
	<datestamp>1268648700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft thought the internet was a fad and that everybody would use a Microsoft-branded network (can't remember the name, it was similar to Compuserve or something). I remember having to install Trumpet or WinSocket or whatever the name was, just to add TCP/IP to Windows 3.11 so I could browse websites.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft thought the internet was a fad and that everybody would use a Microsoft-branded network ( ca n't remember the name , it was similar to Compuserve or something ) .
I remember having to install Trumpet or WinSocket or whatever the name was , just to add TCP/IP to Windows 3.11 so I could browse websites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft thought the internet was a fad and that everybody would use a Microsoft-branded network (can't remember the name, it was similar to Compuserve or something).
I remember having to install Trumpet or WinSocket or whatever the name was, just to add TCP/IP to Windows 3.11 so I could browse websites.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31487920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31487900</id>
	<title>mcc.com?</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1268648160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who were they?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who were they ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who were they?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31489444</id>
	<title>Domain names suck!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268656020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As does the government-enforced centralization that makes them possible, making Internet users ever-more dependent on centralized force.  The free market would have come up with other ideas for name resolution and the like, with multiple competing authorities (like search engine rankings) and thus multiple points of failure and control - when one becomes tyrannical you'd just switch to an other!  A much freer Internet would have emerged without this centralization, and would have been much better, stronger, and more resilient without it!</p><p>(Signed: Alex Libman's sock-puppet.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As does the government-enforced centralization that makes them possible , making Internet users ever-more dependent on centralized force .
The free market would have come up with other ideas for name resolution and the like , with multiple competing authorities ( like search engine rankings ) and thus multiple points of failure and control - when one becomes tyrannical you 'd just switch to an other !
A much freer Internet would have emerged without this centralization , and would have been much better , stronger , and more resilient without it !
( Signed : Alex Libman 's sock-puppet .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As does the government-enforced centralization that makes them possible, making Internet users ever-more dependent on centralized force.
The free market would have come up with other ideas for name resolution and the like, with multiple competing authorities (like search engine rankings) and thus multiple points of failure and control - when one becomes tyrannical you'd just switch to an other!
A much freer Internet would have emerged without this centralization, and would have been much better, stronger, and more resilient without it!
(Signed: Alex Libman's sock-puppet.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488582</id>
	<title>Re:They should have kept the price high</title>
	<author>Ron Atkinson</author>
	<datestamp>1268651040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't remember it ever being $100, you probably paid for 2 years. When I got my first domain name in the early 90's before the commercialization of the Internet domain name registration was free. I had my name for a couple of years at no charge (also had a class C subnet assigned to me, which I turned back in last year to ARIN). After the InterNIC transferred from SRI over to Network Solutions (think it was 1994 or so), and the Internet became commercial, the government decided to charge $50 for domain names in which $35 went to Network Solutions and $15 to the U.S. Government. After I think 2 years or so it was determined that the $15 could be considered an illegal tax, so that was revoked leaving the standard $35 Network Solutions fee.
<br> <br>
I also agree that the downfall of the domain name registration was when it was passed to ICANN. People may have complained about the $35, but we didn't have squatters and people hijacking names just because someone forgot to "pay the bill".</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't remember it ever being $ 100 , you probably paid for 2 years .
When I got my first domain name in the early 90 's before the commercialization of the Internet domain name registration was free .
I had my name for a couple of years at no charge ( also had a class C subnet assigned to me , which I turned back in last year to ARIN ) .
After the InterNIC transferred from SRI over to Network Solutions ( think it was 1994 or so ) , and the Internet became commercial , the government decided to charge $ 50 for domain names in which $ 35 went to Network Solutions and $ 15 to the U.S. Government. After I think 2 years or so it was determined that the $ 15 could be considered an illegal tax , so that was revoked leaving the standard $ 35 Network Solutions fee .
I also agree that the downfall of the domain name registration was when it was passed to ICANN .
People may have complained about the $ 35 , but we did n't have squatters and people hijacking names just because someone forgot to " pay the bill " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't remember it ever being $100, you probably paid for 2 years.
When I got my first domain name in the early 90's before the commercialization of the Internet domain name registration was free.
I had my name for a couple of years at no charge (also had a class C subnet assigned to me, which I turned back in last year to ARIN).
After the InterNIC transferred from SRI over to Network Solutions (think it was 1994 or so), and the Internet became commercial, the government decided to charge $50 for domain names in which $35 went to Network Solutions and $15 to the U.S. Government. After I think 2 years or so it was determined that the $15 could be considered an illegal tax, so that was revoked leaving the standard $35 Network Solutions fee.
I also agree that the downfall of the domain name registration was when it was passed to ICANN.
People may have complained about the $35, but we didn't have squatters and people hijacking names just because someone forgot to "pay the bill".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488268</id>
	<title>Re:They should have kept the price high</title>
	<author>qwijibo</author>
	<datestamp>1268649540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back in my day, we didn't have to pay for domains.  They were free, you just set up a couple of name servers and emailed in a form.  I remember sending uunet $50 back then, not for the domain, but for them to set up a couple of name servers to be authoritative for the domain.  When I had my own machines on the net, I provided name servers for free so others could get domains without spending a penny.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in my day , we did n't have to pay for domains .
They were free , you just set up a couple of name servers and emailed in a form .
I remember sending uunet $ 50 back then , not for the domain , but for them to set up a couple of name servers to be authoritative for the domain .
When I had my own machines on the net , I provided name servers for free so others could get domains without spending a penny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in my day, we didn't have to pay for domains.
They were free, you just set up a couple of name servers and emailed in a form.
I remember sending uunet $50 back then, not for the domain, but for them to set up a couple of name servers to be authoritative for the domain.
When I had my own machines on the net, I provided name servers for free so others could get domains without spending a penny.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31495244</id>
	<title>Re:When I started out</title>
	<author>ginbot462</author>
	<datestamp>1268753040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see a 3 digit or less id to back that up. Citation please!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see a 3 digit or less id to back that up .
Citation please !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see a 3 digit or less id to back that up.
Citation please!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31489186</id>
	<title>Re:Northrup == oldest surviving?</title>
	<author>Darinbob</author>
	<datestamp>1268654460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hmm, BBN.COM is owned by Raytheon, who acquired BBN.  Not sure if it counts as "surviving".  At least when you go there it says BBN, whereas DEC.COM takes you to HP with no mention of DEC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm , BBN.COM is owned by Raytheon , who acquired BBN .
Not sure if it counts as " surviving " .
At least when you go there it says BBN , whereas DEC.COM takes you to HP with no mention of DEC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm, BBN.COM is owned by Raytheon, who acquired BBN.
Not sure if it counts as "surviving".
At least when you go there it says BBN, whereas DEC.COM takes you to HP with no mention of DEC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31489088</id>
	<title>Re:No ..</title>
	<author>Darinbob</author>
	<datestamp>1268653920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Quite a lot of people thought the internet was a fad.  The big thing was with LANs, and there were several competing networking protocols in the LAN arena.  You didn't need the internet to send global email or documents (plenty of internet gateways took care of that).  It took a long time for TCP/IP to catch on, but because the protocol was open and understandable and not tied to a vendor it had plenty of opportunities to grow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quite a lot of people thought the internet was a fad .
The big thing was with LANs , and there were several competing networking protocols in the LAN arena .
You did n't need the internet to send global email or documents ( plenty of internet gateways took care of that ) .
It took a long time for TCP/IP to catch on , but because the protocol was open and understandable and not tied to a vendor it had plenty of opportunities to grow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quite a lot of people thought the internet was a fad.
The big thing was with LANs, and there were several competing networking protocols in the LAN arena.
You didn't need the internet to send global email or documents (plenty of internet gateways took care of that).
It took a long time for TCP/IP to catch on, but because the protocol was open and understandable and not tied to a vendor it had plenty of opportunities to grow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488772</id>
	<title>Re:threadjack</title>
	<author>jnaujok</author>
	<datestamp>1268652000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Genera is still sold by Symbolics DKS (Germany) and Open Genera is now a closed-source project that runs on Tru64 Unix boxes.<br>
<br>
There's supposedly still an open port of Open Genera that's supposed to run on Linux on Alpha CPU's.<br>
<br>
Google is your friend: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genera\_(operating\_system)" title="wikipedia.org">Open Genera</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Genera is still sold by Symbolics DKS ( Germany ) and Open Genera is now a closed-source project that runs on Tru64 Unix boxes .
There 's supposedly still an open port of Open Genera that 's supposed to run on Linux on Alpha CPU 's .
Google is your friend : Open Genera [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Genera is still sold by Symbolics DKS (Germany) and Open Genera is now a closed-source project that runs on Tru64 Unix boxes.
There's supposedly still an open port of Open Genera that's supposed to run on Linux on Alpha CPU's.
Google is your friend: Open Genera [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31487968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488398</id>
	<title>When I started out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268650200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"DNS" was a "HOSTS.TXT" file FTP'd down from <a href="http://www3.isi.edu/home" title="isi.edu">ISI</a> [isi.edu].</p><p>Now stop doing zone transfers across my lawn, you punks!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" DNS " was a " HOSTS.TXT " file FTP 'd down from ISI [ isi.edu ] .Now stop doing zone transfers across my lawn , you punks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"DNS" was a "HOSTS.TXT" file FTP'd down from ISI [isi.edu].Now stop doing zone transfers across my lawn, you punks!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31490854</id>
	<title>Re:They should have kept the price high</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268664480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree.</p><p>The Internet is totally ruined.  Nobody uses it anymore, even, it's that bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree.The Internet is totally ruined .
Nobody uses it anymore , even , it 's that bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.The Internet is totally ruined.
Nobody uses it anymore, even, it's that bad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488070</id>
	<title>I knew it!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268648700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>25.     05-Aug-1986     STARGATE.COM</p><p>This precedes the movie by 8 years. Do you know what that means? It's all real! I knew it! I am so getting myself an F-302. Cheyenne Mountain, here I come.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>25 .
05-Aug-1986 STARGATE.COMThis precedes the movie by 8 years .
Do you know what that means ?
It 's all real !
I knew it !
I am so getting myself an F-302 .
Cheyenne Mountain , here I come .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>25.
05-Aug-1986     STARGATE.COMThis precedes the movie by 8 years.
Do you know what that means?
It's all real!
I knew it!
I am so getting myself an F-302.
Cheyenne Mountain, here I come.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2031211_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31495244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2031211_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31490154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31487878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2031211_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31489600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31489118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31487920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2031211_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31493930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2031211_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31489088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31487920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2031211_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31489060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31487920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2031211_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31487900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2031211_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2031211_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31490854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2031211_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2031211_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31489186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2031211_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2031211_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31493554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31487920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2031211_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31489512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31489118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31487920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2031211_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2031211_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31487968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2031211_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31487900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2031211_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2031211_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2031211_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31491988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31489118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31487920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2031211_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31491650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31487920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2031211_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2031211_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31489470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2031211_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31489342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_2031211_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_2031211.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488168
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_2031211.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31487968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488772
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_2031211.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31489084
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_2031211.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488216
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_2031211.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31489186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31489342
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_2031211.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488974
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_2031211.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488070
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_2031211.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488774
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_2031211.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488190
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_2031211.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31487878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31490154
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_2031211.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31487900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488444
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_2031211.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31490854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31493930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488524
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_2031211.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31487920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31493554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488060
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488242
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31489060
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31489088
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31489118
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31489512
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31489600
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31491988
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31491650
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_2031211.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31489470
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_2031211.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488640
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_2031211.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31493076
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_2031211.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31495244
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_2031211.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_2031211.31488606
</commentlist>
</conversation>
