<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_29_2115235</id>
	<title>Open Source, Open Standards Under Attack In Europe</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1269855480000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Glyn Moody writes <i>"A <a href="http://www.computerworlduk.com/community/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=2878&amp;blogid=14">battle for the soul of European IT</a> is taking place behind closed doors in Brussels.  At stake is the key Digital Agenda for Europe, due to be unveiled in a month's time.  David Hammerstein, ex-Member of European Parliament for the Greens, tweeted last week: '<a href="http://twitter.com/DaHammerstein">SOS to everyone</a> as sources confirm that Kroes is about to eliminate "open standards" policy from EU digital agenda; Kroes has been under intense lobbying pressure from Microsoft to get rid of interoperability and open source goals of EU.'  This is <a href="http://www.pcinpact.com/actu/news/56095-nellies-kroes-agenda-politique-numerique.htm">confirmed by the French magazine PC Inpact</a> (<a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&amp;prev=\_t&amp;hl=en&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;layout=1&amp;eotf=1&amp;u=http\%3A\%2F\%2Fwww.pcinpact.com\%2Factu\%2Fnews\%2F56095-nellies-kroes-agenda-politique-numerique.htm&amp;sl=fr&amp;tl=en">Google translation</a>), which also managed to obtain a copy of the <a href="http://www.pcinpact.com/media/draftdigitalagendaCIS-4.DOC">draft Digital Agenda</a> (DOC).  It's currently supportive of both open source and open standards &mdash; but for how much longer?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Glyn Moody writes " A battle for the soul of European IT is taking place behind closed doors in Brussels .
At stake is the key Digital Agenda for Europe , due to be unveiled in a month 's time .
David Hammerstein , ex-Member of European Parliament for the Greens , tweeted last week : 'SOS to everyone as sources confirm that Kroes is about to eliminate " open standards " policy from EU digital agenda ; Kroes has been under intense lobbying pressure from Microsoft to get rid of interoperability and open source goals of EU .
' This is confirmed by the French magazine PC Inpact ( Google translation ) , which also managed to obtain a copy of the draft Digital Agenda ( DOC ) .
It 's currently supportive of both open source and open standards    but for how much longer ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Glyn Moody writes "A battle for the soul of European IT is taking place behind closed doors in Brussels.
At stake is the key Digital Agenda for Europe, due to be unveiled in a month's time.
David Hammerstein, ex-Member of European Parliament for the Greens, tweeted last week: 'SOS to everyone as sources confirm that Kroes is about to eliminate "open standards" policy from EU digital agenda; Kroes has been under intense lobbying pressure from Microsoft to get rid of interoperability and open source goals of EU.
'  This is confirmed by the French magazine PC Inpact (Google translation), which also managed to obtain a copy of the draft Digital Agenda (DOC).
It's currently supportive of both open source and open standards — but for how much longer?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663056</id>
	<title>Re:Importance</title>
	<author>alexborges</author>
	<datestamp>1269860700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Governments make up for MOST of the IT market if you meassure it in dollars. A government unfriendly, by mandate, to open source solutions, and obvlivious as to why precisely in that market is Open Source so important, is a danger to the comercial viability of open source software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Governments make up for MOST of the IT market if you meassure it in dollars .
A government unfriendly , by mandate , to open source solutions , and obvlivious as to why precisely in that market is Open Source so important , is a danger to the comercial viability of open source software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Governments make up for MOST of the IT market if you meassure it in dollars.
A government unfriendly, by mandate, to open source solutions, and obvlivious as to why precisely in that market is Open Source so important, is a danger to the comercial viability of open source software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31668762</id>
	<title>Re:War</title>
	<author>kubitus</author>
	<datestamp>1269954660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>what do you expect from the son of a lawyer?</htmltext>
<tokenext>what do you expect from the son of a lawyer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what do you expect from the son of a lawyer?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662862</id>
	<title>In AD 2010</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269859740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>War was beginning.</htmltext>
<tokenext>War was beginning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>War was beginning.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663570</id>
	<title>Re:Gay</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269863580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You wish, chunnel-butt.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You wish , chunnel-butt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You wish, chunnel-butt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31667946</id>
	<title>Re:Importance</title>
	<author>shnull</author>
	<datestamp>1269944400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They can't really force private companies and users so it looks as if ms is just trying to secure a deal to get teh win on all government machines</htmltext>
<tokenext>They ca n't really force private companies and users so it looks as if ms is just trying to secure a deal to get teh win on all government machines</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can't really force private companies and users so it looks as if ms is just trying to secure a deal to get teh win on all government machines</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31667990</id>
	<title>Re:In AD 2010</title>
	<author>HopefulIntern</author>
	<datestamp>1269945120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What you say?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What you say ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you say?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663028</id>
	<title>Re:In AD 2010</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269860580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I laughed when I first saw this meme eight fucking years ago. Can't people let this die?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I laughed when I first saw this meme eight fucking years ago .
Ca n't people let this die ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I laughed when I first saw this meme eight fucking years ago.
Can't people let this die?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31665398</id>
	<title>Re:Great!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269874380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Apparently the European Digital Agenda Commissioner (2010-2014) is a 70 year old woman... How many 70 year old people are there who even know what open source means? I'm ageist and sexist.</p></div><p>fixed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently the European Digital Agenda Commissioner ( 2010-2014 ) is a 70 year old woman... How many 70 year old people are there who even know what open source means ?
I 'm ageist and sexist.fixed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently the European Digital Agenda Commissioner (2010-2014) is a 70 year old woman... How many 70 year old people are there who even know what open source means?
I'm ageist and sexist.fixed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663814</id>
	<title>Re:Desperation?</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1269864960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's you. They've <i>always</i> been desperate for control.  It was the thing that motivated them to build IE, they didn't want to let someone else control the internet.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net was initially motivated by the same thing: it was going to be a kind of cloud computing thing, where all applications in the world ran on Microsoft's cloud.  Which is why it was called<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net in the first place, and why it compiles to byte-code instead of machine code, even though it only is ever run on one architecture and one operating system (yeah, Mono, but that wasn't in Microsoft's plans).<br> <br>
On the other hand, Microsoft HAS gotten more involved in politics, and that may be what you are observing.  They've gotten involved more and more ever since the anti-trust case.  I read an article a decade ago discussing how Microsoft realized that to stay out of problems with the government, it helps to 'donate'. They are very equal opportunity givers, <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000115" title="opensecrets.org">giving both to Republican and Democrat,</a> [opensecrets.org] depending on who they think is more likely to win.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's you .
They 've always been desperate for control .
It was the thing that motivated them to build IE , they did n't want to let someone else control the internet .
.Net was initially motivated by the same thing : it was going to be a kind of cloud computing thing , where all applications in the world ran on Microsoft 's cloud .
Which is why it was called .net in the first place , and why it compiles to byte-code instead of machine code , even though it only is ever run on one architecture and one operating system ( yeah , Mono , but that was n't in Microsoft 's plans ) .
On the other hand , Microsoft HAS gotten more involved in politics , and that may be what you are observing .
They 've gotten involved more and more ever since the anti-trust case .
I read an article a decade ago discussing how Microsoft realized that to stay out of problems with the government , it helps to 'donate' .
They are very equal opportunity givers , giving both to Republican and Democrat , [ opensecrets.org ] depending on who they think is more likely to win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's you.
They've always been desperate for control.
It was the thing that motivated them to build IE, they didn't want to let someone else control the internet.
.Net was initially motivated by the same thing: it was going to be a kind of cloud computing thing, where all applications in the world ran on Microsoft's cloud.
Which is why it was called .net in the first place, and why it compiles to byte-code instead of machine code, even though it only is ever run on one architecture and one operating system (yeah, Mono, but that wasn't in Microsoft's plans).
On the other hand, Microsoft HAS gotten more involved in politics, and that may be what you are observing.
They've gotten involved more and more ever since the anti-trust case.
I read an article a decade ago discussing how Microsoft realized that to stay out of problems with the government, it helps to 'donate'.
They are very equal opportunity givers, giving both to Republican and Democrat, [opensecrets.org] depending on who they think is more likely to win.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31664016</id>
	<title>Europe is in corporate hands</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1269866160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my experience, Europe, sadly, is more strongly in corporate hands than the US.  The EU effectively hands out many billions in subsidies to corporations.  (That's in addition to all the agricultural subsidies, which are an evil that is as prevalent in the EU as it is in the US.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my experience , Europe , sadly , is more strongly in corporate hands than the US .
The EU effectively hands out many billions in subsidies to corporations .
( That 's in addition to all the agricultural subsidies , which are an evil that is as prevalent in the EU as it is in the US .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my experience, Europe, sadly, is more strongly in corporate hands than the US.
The EU effectively hands out many billions in subsidies to corporations.
(That's in addition to all the agricultural subsidies, which are an evil that is as prevalent in the EU as it is in the US.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31667758</id>
	<title>Re:objection</title>
	<author>Pflipp</author>
	<datestamp>1269941940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IT has lots of soul. You have been in IT too long. Now it has <i>your</i> soul, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IT has lots of soul .
You have been in IT too long .
Now it has your soul , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IT has lots of soul.
You have been in IT too long.
Now it has your soul, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31669996</id>
	<title>Re:War</title>
	<author>MikeBabcock</author>
	<datestamp>1269961860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get out of your economics class taught by the underpaid professor who has no real-world data on why his beliefs are right, and look at the facts.  Making a better product got dozens (if not more) companies bought out by Microsoft's huge pockets, whose products then disappeared.  Making that better product did not actually end up replacing Microsoft's products at all.  Microsoft has a monopoly on the desktop and is able to distribute its inferior products to users directly without any marketing energy.  That's why they got in trouble, and they deserved it IMHO.</p><p>Make Microsoft sell their browser technology like everyone else did back when they came out, and you'd see a different history of IE adoption.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get out of your economics class taught by the underpaid professor who has no real-world data on why his beliefs are right , and look at the facts .
Making a better product got dozens ( if not more ) companies bought out by Microsoft 's huge pockets , whose products then disappeared .
Making that better product did not actually end up replacing Microsoft 's products at all .
Microsoft has a monopoly on the desktop and is able to distribute its inferior products to users directly without any marketing energy .
That 's why they got in trouble , and they deserved it IMHO.Make Microsoft sell their browser technology like everyone else did back when they came out , and you 'd see a different history of IE adoption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get out of your economics class taught by the underpaid professor who has no real-world data on why his beliefs are right, and look at the facts.
Making a better product got dozens (if not more) companies bought out by Microsoft's huge pockets, whose products then disappeared.
Making that better product did not actually end up replacing Microsoft's products at all.
Microsoft has a monopoly on the desktop and is able to distribute its inferior products to users directly without any marketing energy.
That's why they got in trouble, and they deserved it IMHO.Make Microsoft sell their browser technology like everyone else did back when they came out, and you'd see a different history of IE adoption.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31667674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31665164</id>
	<title>Socialist propaganda to empower the state.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269872520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Standards should be decided by the free market, of which Microsoft is a very successful part, and not by government bullies with guns, which is exactly what you advocate!</p><p>If Hitler had marketed his government's means to power as "open source standards" then you'd be heiling him to this very day!</p><p>(Signed: Alex Libman's sock-puppet.)<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Standards should be decided by the free market , of which Microsoft is a very successful part , and not by government bullies with guns , which is exactly what you advocate ! If Hitler had marketed his government 's means to power as " open source standards " then you 'd be heiling him to this very day !
( Signed : Alex Libman 's sock-puppet .
)  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Standards should be decided by the free market, of which Microsoft is a very successful part, and not by government bullies with guns, which is exactly what you advocate!If Hitler had marketed his government's means to power as "open source standards" then you'd be heiling him to this very day!
(Signed: Alex Libman's sock-puppet.
)
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31668450</id>
	<title>Re:War</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269951480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hear it's not gay as long as you don't push back</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hear it 's not gay as long as you do n't push back</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hear it's not gay as long as you don't push back</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31664432</id>
	<title>Re:Desperation?</title>
	<author>Yaa 101</author>
	<datestamp>1269868200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not too long ago I was modded troll for saying: while you buy their products, they buy your political leaders.</p><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1571214&amp;cid=31359062" title="slashdot.org">http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1571214&amp;cid=31359062</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>It is still true!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not too long ago I was modded troll for saying : while you buy their products , they buy your political leaders.http : //slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1571214&amp;cid = 31359062 [ slashdot.org ] It is still true !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not too long ago I was modded troll for saying: while you buy their products, they buy your political leaders.http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1571214&amp;cid=31359062 [slashdot.org]It is still true!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663136</id>
	<title>Supportive?</title>
	<author>Qubit</author>
	<datestamp>1269861180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"...which also managed to obtain a copy of the draft Digital Agenda <em>(DOC)</em>. It's currently supportive of both open source and <em>open standards</em> &mdash; but for how much longer?"</p></div><p>Why am I even surprised that the agenda is in MS-Word's old binary file format? Maybe they're just supportive of open standards <em>for other people</em>, or for hypothetical people in a hypothetical world, perhaps.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...which also managed to obtain a copy of the draft Digital Agenda ( DOC ) .
It 's currently supportive of both open source and open standards    but for how much longer ?
" Why am I even surprised that the agenda is in MS-Word 's old binary file format ?
Maybe they 're just supportive of open standards for other people , or for hypothetical people in a hypothetical world , perhaps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...which also managed to obtain a copy of the draft Digital Agenda (DOC).
It's currently supportive of both open source and open standards — but for how much longer?
"Why am I even surprised that the agenda is in MS-Word's old binary file format?
Maybe they're just supportive of open standards for other people, or for hypothetical people in a hypothetical world, perhaps.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31668652</id>
	<title>Re:Great!</title>
	<author>grizzly</author>
	<datestamp>1269953760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do your homework. She is a very tough cookie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do your homework .
She is a very tough cookie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do your homework.
She is a very tough cookie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31667944</id>
	<title>Re:Desperation?</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1269944400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.net got started, partially, as a single sign on system for online services. Never got much traction beyond msn.com and related services. Funny enough, facebook and twitter seems to be heading much the same way, with more "positive" (eye of the beholder) results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.net got started , partially , as a single sign on system for online services .
Never got much traction beyond msn.com and related services .
Funny enough , facebook and twitter seems to be heading much the same way , with more " positive " ( eye of the beholder ) results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.net got started, partially, as a single sign on system for online services.
Never got much traction beyond msn.com and related services.
Funny enough, facebook and twitter seems to be heading much the same way, with more "positive" (eye of the beholder) results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663112</id>
	<title>Cry Havoc And Let Slip The Dogs Of War</title>
	<author>mindbrane</author>
	<datestamp>1269861000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/105600.html" title="phrases.org.uk">"The military order Havoc!</a> [phrases.org.uk] was a signal given to the English military forces in the Middle Ages to direct the soldiery (in Shakespeare's parlance 'the dogs of war') to pillage and chaos."</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The military order Havoc !
[ phrases.org.uk ] was a signal given to the English military forces in the Middle Ages to direct the soldiery ( in Shakespeare 's parlance 'the dogs of war ' ) to pillage and chaos .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The military order Havoc!
[phrases.org.uk] was a signal given to the English military forces in the Middle Ages to direct the soldiery (in Shakespeare's parlance 'the dogs of war') to pillage and chaos.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663158</id>
	<title>Re:objection</title>
	<author>chickenarise</author>
	<datestamp>1269861360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Judge: Sustained!<p>Defendant: Overruled!</p><p>

From the movie "The Ten", here's the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtcbVUNO1NY&amp;feature=related" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">clip</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Judge : Sustained ! Defendant : Overruled !
From the movie " The Ten " , here 's the clip [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Judge: Sustained!Defendant: Overruled!
From the movie "The Ten", here's the clip [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31667966</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>AntiDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1269944760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Irrelevant.  How an open standard is defined is not the point (unless it's seriously lacking in functionality - but then it would never be used anyway).</p><p>If a standard is open it means that</p><p>a:) Somewhere there is publicly available definition of how to implement that standard.  Like a list of all HTML tags, what they mean and guidelines on hwo to render them.</p><p>b:) No patents or licencing restrictions.  A particular library or implementation may be protected (Opera's paid for web browser, for example), but I and others are free to choose other software that also follows the standard or implement our own.</p><p>c:) Documents and data based on the standard are interchangeable - I can view an HTML document in nearly any browser and still read and view it.</p><p>Ultimately, encouraging the use of open standards limits noone (be it company or individual) and empowers end users and society in general.   In the case of a format like ODF for example, nothing at all prevents MS fully supporting it - that they do so half heartedly is their choice.</p><p>What a widely used open standard does do, however, is force sofware implementations to compete - be it on value for money, features, reliability, speed etc.  That's only bad for those companies or groups that simply lack the ability to compete fairly.</p><p>So no, it matters not how the standard was defined - if it's solid, useable and open then it's all good.  Needless to say, it's often better to have multiple open standards for certain things to allow competition between the formats themsleves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Irrelevant .
How an open standard is defined is not the point ( unless it 's seriously lacking in functionality - but then it would never be used anyway ) .If a standard is open it means thata : ) Somewhere there is publicly available definition of how to implement that standard .
Like a list of all HTML tags , what they mean and guidelines on hwo to render them.b : ) No patents or licencing restrictions .
A particular library or implementation may be protected ( Opera 's paid for web browser , for example ) , but I and others are free to choose other software that also follows the standard or implement our own.c : ) Documents and data based on the standard are interchangeable - I can view an HTML document in nearly any browser and still read and view it.Ultimately , encouraging the use of open standards limits noone ( be it company or individual ) and empowers end users and society in general .
In the case of a format like ODF for example , nothing at all prevents MS fully supporting it - that they do so half heartedly is their choice.What a widely used open standard does do , however , is force sofware implementations to compete - be it on value for money , features , reliability , speed etc .
That 's only bad for those companies or groups that simply lack the ability to compete fairly.So no , it matters not how the standard was defined - if it 's solid , useable and open then it 's all good .
Needless to say , it 's often better to have multiple open standards for certain things to allow competition between the formats themsleves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Irrelevant.
How an open standard is defined is not the point (unless it's seriously lacking in functionality - but then it would never be used anyway).If a standard is open it means thata:) Somewhere there is publicly available definition of how to implement that standard.
Like a list of all HTML tags, what they mean and guidelines on hwo to render them.b:) No patents or licencing restrictions.
A particular library or implementation may be protected (Opera's paid for web browser, for example), but I and others are free to choose other software that also follows the standard or implement our own.c:) Documents and data based on the standard are interchangeable - I can view an HTML document in nearly any browser and still read and view it.Ultimately, encouraging the use of open standards limits noone (be it company or individual) and empowers end users and society in general.
In the case of a format like ODF for example, nothing at all prevents MS fully supporting it - that they do so half heartedly is their choice.What a widely used open standard does do, however, is force sofware implementations to compete - be it on value for money, features, reliability, speed etc.
That's only bad for those companies or groups that simply lack the ability to compete fairly.So no, it matters not how the standard was defined - if it's solid, useable and open then it's all good.
Needless to say, it's often better to have multiple open standards for certain things to allow competition between the formats themsleves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662920</id>
	<title>Importance</title>
	<author>Dthief</author>
	<datestamp>1269859980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I dont know much about this and am curious why it is so important. Wont open source continue to be open source independent of what the EU decides? Or is this saying that the EU gov'ts will only use open source programs, and that is defined by this document?
More info would be appreciated, the article didnt really touch on the importance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I dont know much about this and am curious why it is so important .
Wont open source continue to be open source independent of what the EU decides ?
Or is this saying that the EU gov'ts will only use open source programs , and that is defined by this document ?
More info would be appreciated , the article didnt really touch on the importance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dont know much about this and am curious why it is so important.
Wont open source continue to be open source independent of what the EU decides?
Or is this saying that the EU gov'ts will only use open source programs, and that is defined by this document?
More info would be appreciated, the article didnt really touch on the importance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663062</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269860760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The less "open standards" clusterfucks designed by committees of self-righteous idiots the better.</p></div><p>And how "open" is a standard really when the only people allowed in the committees are the representatives of multinational corporations?  And let's not even get into the fact that if you want to get a copy of this "open" standard you usually have to pay hundreds of dollars.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The less " open standards " clusterfucks designed by committees of self-righteous idiots the better.And how " open " is a standard really when the only people allowed in the committees are the representatives of multinational corporations ?
And let 's not even get into the fact that if you want to get a copy of this " open " standard you usually have to pay hundreds of dollars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The less "open standards" clusterfucks designed by committees of self-righteous idiots the better.And how "open" is a standard really when the only people allowed in the committees are the representatives of multinational corporations?
And let's not even get into the fact that if you want to get a copy of this "open" standard you usually have to pay hundreds of dollars.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663260</id>
	<title>Re:Desperation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269862020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, they are desperate. That is why they fight so hard to kill harmless Open Standards policies and harass consumer groups.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , they are desperate .
That is why they fight so hard to kill harmless Open Standards policies and harass consumer groups .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, they are desperate.
That is why they fight so hard to kill harmless Open Standards policies and harass consumer groups.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31664014</id>
	<title>Re:In AD 2010</title>
	<author>BenoitRen</author>
	<datestamp>1269866160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What happen?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What happen ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happen?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31667396</id>
	<title>Re:War</title>
	<author>SpzToid</author>
	<datestamp>1269980820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> I hope many EU leaders start to take offence to Microsoft's tactics and push back hard.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Well the EU antitrust office did declare Microsoft to be an abusive monopoly in 2004.</p><p><a href="http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=860&amp;dat=20040323&amp;id=BAAgAAAAIBAJ&amp;sjid=8BUFAAAAIBAJ&amp;pg=1269,2934192" title="google.com">http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=860&amp;dat=20040323&amp;id=BAAgAAAAIBAJ&amp;sjid=8BUFAAAAIBAJ&amp;pg=1269,2934192</a> [google.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope many EU leaders start to take offence to Microsoft 's tactics and push back hard .
Well the EU antitrust office did declare Microsoft to be an abusive monopoly in 2004.http : //news.google.com/newspapers ? nid = 860&amp;dat = 20040323&amp;id = BAAgAAAAIBAJ&amp;sjid = 8BUFAAAAIBAJ&amp;pg = 1269,2934192 [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I hope many EU leaders start to take offence to Microsoft's tactics and push back hard.
Well the EU antitrust office did declare Microsoft to be an abusive monopoly in 2004.http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=860&amp;dat=20040323&amp;id=BAAgAAAAIBAJ&amp;sjid=8BUFAAAAIBAJ&amp;pg=1269,2934192 [google.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662946</id>
	<title>Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269860160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The less "open standards" clusterfucks designed by committees of self-righteous idiots the better.</p><p>These people always want to tell you how you should do your stuff, but for some reason they seem less concerned with ensuring that you can accomplish your task without a bunch of insane workarounds to compensate for missing features.</p><p>Case in point: HTML.</p><p>Seriously, most of the "open standards" people i've had teh misfortune of working with have been total fucktards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The less " open standards " clusterfucks designed by committees of self-righteous idiots the better.These people always want to tell you how you should do your stuff , but for some reason they seem less concerned with ensuring that you can accomplish your task without a bunch of insane workarounds to compensate for missing features.Case in point : HTML.Seriously , most of the " open standards " people i 've had teh misfortune of working with have been total fucktards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The less "open standards" clusterfucks designed by committees of self-righteous idiots the better.These people always want to tell you how you should do your stuff, but for some reason they seem less concerned with ensuring that you can accomplish your task without a bunch of insane workarounds to compensate for missing features.Case in point: HTML.Seriously, most of the "open standards" people i've had teh misfortune of working with have been total fucktards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663752</id>
	<title>Re:War</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1269864600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is terribly exciting and worrisome at the same time.  Microsoft has dominated the world with Windows and by leveraging the OS, they are dominating is many other areas as well.  They are unquestionably an abusive monopoly.  With software patents and other intellectual property types creating road blocks and toll roads to innovation and less expensive solutions.</p><p>Open standards is one way to make sure things are fair to ensure that competition is alive and well.  Microsoft cannot compete with others using open standards and expect to win every time.  (I would have no problem if they conformed to open standards and actually offered a better product.)  But instead of competing on the basis of quality, they lobby for laws and policies to change in their favor.</p><p>Microsoft is a corrupt company catering to corrupt politicians.  I hope many EU leaders start to take offence to Microsoft's tactics and push back hard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is terribly exciting and worrisome at the same time .
Microsoft has dominated the world with Windows and by leveraging the OS , they are dominating is many other areas as well .
They are unquestionably an abusive monopoly .
With software patents and other intellectual property types creating road blocks and toll roads to innovation and less expensive solutions.Open standards is one way to make sure things are fair to ensure that competition is alive and well .
Microsoft can not compete with others using open standards and expect to win every time .
( I would have no problem if they conformed to open standards and actually offered a better product .
) But instead of competing on the basis of quality , they lobby for laws and policies to change in their favor.Microsoft is a corrupt company catering to corrupt politicians .
I hope many EU leaders start to take offence to Microsoft 's tactics and push back hard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is terribly exciting and worrisome at the same time.
Microsoft has dominated the world with Windows and by leveraging the OS, they are dominating is many other areas as well.
They are unquestionably an abusive monopoly.
With software patents and other intellectual property types creating road blocks and toll roads to innovation and less expensive solutions.Open standards is one way to make sure things are fair to ensure that competition is alive and well.
Microsoft cannot compete with others using open standards and expect to win every time.
(I would have no problem if they conformed to open standards and actually offered a better product.
)  But instead of competing on the basis of quality, they lobby for laws and policies to change in their favor.Microsoft is a corrupt company catering to corrupt politicians.
I hope many EU leaders start to take offence to Microsoft's tactics and push back hard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662888</id>
	<title>objection</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269859860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IT, whether European or otherwise, has no soul</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IT , whether European or otherwise , has no soul</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IT, whether European or otherwise, has no soul</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663214</id>
	<title>Re:Spin doctor much?</title>
	<author>mandelbr0t</author>
	<datestamp>1269861780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's certainly not as clear that the open source people are the "good guys" as it used to be. There are certainly examples of poorly documented, managed and/or tested OSS apps. Infighting among developers causes specifications to become unstable as a power struggle determines what will ultimately prevail. Just because it's open doesn't mean it's good. Likewise, the balance of power is no longer solely with Microsoft. The fact that proprietary solutions will be considered is not a threat to OSS, nor a guarantee that Microsoft will be chosen. Finally, proprietary solutions often use OSS projects if it is beneficial (not GPL, but that's not the issue here).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's certainly not as clear that the open source people are the " good guys " as it used to be .
There are certainly examples of poorly documented , managed and/or tested OSS apps .
Infighting among developers causes specifications to become unstable as a power struggle determines what will ultimately prevail .
Just because it 's open does n't mean it 's good .
Likewise , the balance of power is no longer solely with Microsoft .
The fact that proprietary solutions will be considered is not a threat to OSS , nor a guarantee that Microsoft will be chosen .
Finally , proprietary solutions often use OSS projects if it is beneficial ( not GPL , but that 's not the issue here ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's certainly not as clear that the open source people are the "good guys" as it used to be.
There are certainly examples of poorly documented, managed and/or tested OSS apps.
Infighting among developers causes specifications to become unstable as a power struggle determines what will ultimately prevail.
Just because it's open doesn't mean it's good.
Likewise, the balance of power is no longer solely with Microsoft.
The fact that proprietary solutions will be considered is not a threat to OSS, nor a guarantee that Microsoft will be chosen.
Finally, proprietary solutions often use OSS projects if it is beneficial (not GPL, but that's not the issue here).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31668286</id>
	<title>Siding up with the enemy?</title>
	<author>sandertje</author>
	<datestamp>1269949200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Neelie Kroes nowadays is the European Commisioner for Digital Agenda. Up until last year, she was European Commisioner for Competition. If she'd be siding up with MS in the "war against everything 'open'", she'd be siding up with her old enemy. She cost MS billions in the six years she was commisioner for competition.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-).

Besides, this Digital Agenda thingy isn't all too bad. It's in favor of open standards, promotes fast internet (with all european bureaucracy, it's actually saying absolute goals to achieve) and innovation. It doesn't mention a single word about propietary software.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Neelie Kroes nowadays is the European Commisioner for Digital Agenda .
Up until last year , she was European Commisioner for Competition .
If she 'd be siding up with MS in the " war against everything 'open ' " , she 'd be siding up with her old enemy .
She cost MS billions in the six years she was commisioner for competition .
; - ) . Besides , this Digital Agenda thingy is n't all too bad .
It 's in favor of open standards , promotes fast internet ( with all european bureaucracy , it 's actually saying absolute goals to achieve ) and innovation .
It does n't mention a single word about propietary software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Neelie Kroes nowadays is the European Commisioner for Digital Agenda.
Up until last year, she was European Commisioner for Competition.
If she'd be siding up with MS in the "war against everything 'open'", she'd be siding up with her old enemy.
She cost MS billions in the six years she was commisioner for competition.
;-).

Besides, this Digital Agenda thingy isn't all too bad.
It's in favor of open standards, promotes fast internet (with all european bureaucracy, it's actually saying absolute goals to achieve) and innovation.
It doesn't mention a single word about propietary software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31666570</id>
	<title>Re:War</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269884760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dictate?</p><p>Greece joined the EU and later adopted the Euro voluntarily. They knew that it would mean that other European countries would have a say in their internal affairs too but that they'd also benefit from it. And they have and still do. Other European countries are generously lending them money but since the Greeks made a number of mistakes which lead to their current situation, it's only fair that those lending them money, also tell them not to fuck up anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dictate ? Greece joined the EU and later adopted the Euro voluntarily .
They knew that it would mean that other European countries would have a say in their internal affairs too but that they 'd also benefit from it .
And they have and still do .
Other European countries are generously lending them money but since the Greeks made a number of mistakes which lead to their current situation , it 's only fair that those lending them money , also tell them not to fuck up anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dictate?Greece joined the EU and later adopted the Euro voluntarily.
They knew that it would mean that other European countries would have a say in their internal affairs too but that they'd also benefit from it.
And they have and still do.
Other European countries are generously lending them money but since the Greeks made a number of mistakes which lead to their current situation, it's only fair that those lending them money, also tell them not to fuck up anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663390</id>
	<title>Complaints, anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269862740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, as a person living in the EU - any ideas where I should go (preferably online) to complain and raise my voice against this?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , as a person living in the EU - any ideas where I should go ( preferably online ) to complain and raise my voice against this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, as a person living in the EU - any ideas where I should go (preferably online) to complain and raise my voice against this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31685320</id>
	<title>Header on article should be changed.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270036860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To: "Cry havoc and unleash the dogs of war" or rather "Cry havoc and unleash the slashdot hordes".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To : " Cry havoc and unleash the dogs of war " or rather " Cry havoc and unleash the slashdot hordes " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To: "Cry havoc and unleash the dogs of war" or rather "Cry havoc and unleash the slashdot hordes".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31678692</id>
	<title>Question</title>
	<author>Linuxguy60</author>
	<datestamp>1269948360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Living next door to Redmond in Seattle, I have met many current and former Microsoft employees.  I hear 3 things from most every current employee:

1. Linux is... (insert term of derision)
2. You would not have the problem if you would just use Windows.
3. You have to use Windows, you don't have a choice.

Is the attitude of the employees a reflection of the corporation they work for?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Living next door to Redmond in Seattle , I have met many current and former Microsoft employees .
I hear 3 things from most every current employee : 1 .
Linux is... ( insert term of derision ) 2 .
You would not have the problem if you would just use Windows .
3. You have to use Windows , you do n't have a choice .
Is the attitude of the employees a reflection of the corporation they work for ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Living next door to Redmond in Seattle, I have met many current and former Microsoft employees.
I hear 3 things from most every current employee:

1.
Linux is... (insert term of derision)
2.
You would not have the problem if you would just use Windows.
3. You have to use Windows, you don't have a choice.
Is the attitude of the employees a reflection of the corporation they work for?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662770</id>
	<title>War</title>
	<author>Aphoxema</author>
	<datestamp>1269859260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is terribly exciting and I'm not even sure why...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is terribly exciting and I 'm not even sure why.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is terribly exciting and I'm not even sure why...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663110</id>
	<title>Acta related?</title>
	<author>solune</author>
	<datestamp>1269860940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I wonder if the ACTA plays into this?
</p><p>
Seems to me open standards would hinder a closed-sourced DRM scheme designed to limit communication.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if the ACTA plays into this ?
Seems to me open standards would hinder a closed-sourced DRM scheme designed to limit communication .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I wonder if the ACTA plays into this?
Seems to me open standards would hinder a closed-sourced DRM scheme designed to limit communication.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663060</id>
	<title>Re:Importance</title>
	<author>99BottlesOfBeerInMyF</author>
	<datestamp>1269860760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I dont[sic] know much about this and am curious why it is so important. Wont[sic] open source continue to be open source independent of what the EU decides?</p></div><p>First this is more about open standards than open source software. Some organizations certainly will use them regardless, but lacking a clear directive, the status quo rules, and that tends to be proprietary formats and protocols now dominating the industry and harming interoperability and reducing competition.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> Or is this saying that the EU gov'ts will only use open source programs, and that is defined by this document?</p></div><p>Originally this document established a preference for more open formats that are more likely to be usable to later generations and which provide more choice of both IT vendors and clients going forward. This was a recognition of the importance of open and documented protocols and formats. Note, nothing in this was pro or con of any given vendor. Rather it was in favor of open standardization where all vendors could compete instead of just one vendor (read Microsoft). The idea was that it is important for say word processing in EU governments to standardize on a format where any company could create an interoperable solution so governments could take competitive bids on a level playing field.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I dont [ sic ] know much about this and am curious why it is so important .
Wont [ sic ] open source continue to be open source independent of what the EU decides ? First this is more about open standards than open source software .
Some organizations certainly will use them regardless , but lacking a clear directive , the status quo rules , and that tends to be proprietary formats and protocols now dominating the industry and harming interoperability and reducing competition .
Or is this saying that the EU gov'ts will only use open source programs , and that is defined by this document ? Originally this document established a preference for more open formats that are more likely to be usable to later generations and which provide more choice of both IT vendors and clients going forward .
This was a recognition of the importance of open and documented protocols and formats .
Note , nothing in this was pro or con of any given vendor .
Rather it was in favor of open standardization where all vendors could compete instead of just one vendor ( read Microsoft ) .
The idea was that it is important for say word processing in EU governments to standardize on a format where any company could create an interoperable solution so governments could take competitive bids on a level playing field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dont[sic] know much about this and am curious why it is so important.
Wont[sic] open source continue to be open source independent of what the EU decides?First this is more about open standards than open source software.
Some organizations certainly will use them regardless, but lacking a clear directive, the status quo rules, and that tends to be proprietary formats and protocols now dominating the industry and harming interoperability and reducing competition.
Or is this saying that the EU gov'ts will only use open source programs, and that is defined by this document?Originally this document established a preference for more open formats that are more likely to be usable to later generations and which provide more choice of both IT vendors and clients going forward.
This was a recognition of the importance of open and documented protocols and formats.
Note, nothing in this was pro or con of any given vendor.
Rather it was in favor of open standardization where all vendors could compete instead of just one vendor (read Microsoft).
The idea was that it is important for say word processing in EU governments to standardize on a format where any company could create an interoperable solution so governments could take competitive bids on a level playing field.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662968</id>
	<title>Engineering new jobs</title>
	<author>gilesjuk</author>
	<datestamp>1269860220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With the global slump politicians are under pressure to spend money on software, not use open source.</p><p>Of course, the layman doesn't always understand that open source software is sold commercially as well.</p><p>Under freedom of information laws surely we're entitled to see information in a format anyone can read?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With the global slump politicians are under pressure to spend money on software , not use open source.Of course , the layman does n't always understand that open source software is sold commercially as well.Under freedom of information laws surely we 're entitled to see information in a format anyone can read ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the global slump politicians are under pressure to spend money on software, not use open source.Of course, the layman doesn't always understand that open source software is sold commercially as well.Under freedom of information laws surely we're entitled to see information in a format anyone can read?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663960</id>
	<title>Re:objection</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269865800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I disagree.  IT bought Microsoft's soul a long time ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree .
IT bought Microsoft 's soul a long time ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree.
IT bought Microsoft's soul a long time ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663236</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>MightyMartian</author>
	<datestamp>1269861900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And look, the Redmond Whores come out to play.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And look , the Redmond Whores come out to play .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And look, the Redmond Whores come out to play.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31668172</id>
	<title>Re:War</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1269947640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess the US and the EU courts must ALSO look up their definitions of monopoly and reconsider their case history against Microsoft.  Your defense of Microsoft is weak.  Open standard means a standard that is defined clearly and independent of any particular plaform or implementation.  Established/defacto standards?  Yes, we know that DOC and XLS are defacto standards for use in business, but are they even fully defined in a way that can be implemented effectively by others?  Defacto just means that we're currently stuck with it for better or worse.  All this jibber-jabber about open standards is all about trying to get us unstuck.  You either can't see a problem with being stuck with a defacto standard that demands you buy and keep buying the same products over and over again from a single vendor (how else can you define a monopoly?) or you are simply denying it.</p><p>In very short time since I changed jobs, I have started changing my company's Microsoft-based approach to everything over to allowing and enabling F/OSS at every point where it works well.  I now have OpenOffice.org on every PC.  I have Firefox on every PC.  I have GiMP and Inkscape on a growing number of PCs.  I even have alternative PDF printer software installed on every PC.  Turns out that for many people, actually most people, OpenOffice's Draw package is the part that people are using.  The company is unwilling to buy Visio licenses just so people can make flow-charts and org-charts any more.  I have showed them that, for the simple work most people do, OO.o is just fine.  Turns out that MSIE 8 doesn't work well with eRoom.  Firefox does.  And our parent company's VPN will require the use of MSIE8 before long.  So we're just being pro-active.  Need eRoom?  Use Firefox.  And while they are at it, Firefox works with just about everything else as well, they find and keep using it.  A few people with needs for graphic type work have been sending out order for business cards and the like to an outside company.  When I discovered that, I showed the people how to take existing files returned by these "graphic professionals" and modify them for changes needed using those simple tools.  The main resistance to that, of course, was the requirement to learn and understand something new.  (Humans don't like change, even when it's good for them!)  And as for the PDF printer alternatives?  Well, most users think they need Adobe Acrobat when all they want to do is print things to PDF.  Turns out they can use OO.o to generate PDFs and even edit them thanks to some clever addons and print to PDF from any application thanks to a certain Ghostscript based product.</p><p>While the defacto standard is in place at my office, people's eyes are opening up to F/OSS software and are finding it quite useful and adequate.  You are preaching to the choir by saying that people don't want change.  We all know that.  But when change sort of creeps up on you at a convenient pace, I find it works out quite well.</p><p>I'm hoping that some government bodies start shifting its output over to open standards more... that'll just make my job all the more easy.</p><p>BTW, "Make a better package that customers want."?  Seriously?  Microsoft was the last company to put serial number and other protections into their software and they pretty much did it after all the competition was crushed.  Got any clue as to why that was?  Microsoft has often cited "pirated copies" of its software in its market share reports.  Market share was more important to them in the early phases of building critical mass than "losses" to piracy.  It may be pushing it to say that Microsoft even encouraged piracy in those days, but their lack of security measures seemed to express it pretty well.  And the fact that they did it later would seem to suggest they could have done it at any time but chose to wait until they actually achieved critical mass before doing so.  Microsoft never has a "better" package.  They had the more convenient package.  It was installed on their PCs when they bought them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess the US and the EU courts must ALSO look up their definitions of monopoly and reconsider their case history against Microsoft .
Your defense of Microsoft is weak .
Open standard means a standard that is defined clearly and independent of any particular plaform or implementation .
Established/defacto standards ?
Yes , we know that DOC and XLS are defacto standards for use in business , but are they even fully defined in a way that can be implemented effectively by others ?
Defacto just means that we 're currently stuck with it for better or worse .
All this jibber-jabber about open standards is all about trying to get us unstuck .
You either ca n't see a problem with being stuck with a defacto standard that demands you buy and keep buying the same products over and over again from a single vendor ( how else can you define a monopoly ?
) or you are simply denying it.In very short time since I changed jobs , I have started changing my company 's Microsoft-based approach to everything over to allowing and enabling F/OSS at every point where it works well .
I now have OpenOffice.org on every PC .
I have Firefox on every PC .
I have GiMP and Inkscape on a growing number of PCs .
I even have alternative PDF printer software installed on every PC .
Turns out that for many people , actually most people , OpenOffice 's Draw package is the part that people are using .
The company is unwilling to buy Visio licenses just so people can make flow-charts and org-charts any more .
I have showed them that , for the simple work most people do , OO.o is just fine .
Turns out that MSIE 8 does n't work well with eRoom .
Firefox does .
And our parent company 's VPN will require the use of MSIE8 before long .
So we 're just being pro-active .
Need eRoom ?
Use Firefox .
And while they are at it , Firefox works with just about everything else as well , they find and keep using it .
A few people with needs for graphic type work have been sending out order for business cards and the like to an outside company .
When I discovered that , I showed the people how to take existing files returned by these " graphic professionals " and modify them for changes needed using those simple tools .
The main resistance to that , of course , was the requirement to learn and understand something new .
( Humans do n't like change , even when it 's good for them !
) And as for the PDF printer alternatives ?
Well , most users think they need Adobe Acrobat when all they want to do is print things to PDF .
Turns out they can use OO.o to generate PDFs and even edit them thanks to some clever addons and print to PDF from any application thanks to a certain Ghostscript based product.While the defacto standard is in place at my office , people 's eyes are opening up to F/OSS software and are finding it quite useful and adequate .
You are preaching to the choir by saying that people do n't want change .
We all know that .
But when change sort of creeps up on you at a convenient pace , I find it works out quite well.I 'm hoping that some government bodies start shifting its output over to open standards more... that 'll just make my job all the more easy.BTW , " Make a better package that customers want. " ?
Seriously ? Microsoft was the last company to put serial number and other protections into their software and they pretty much did it after all the competition was crushed .
Got any clue as to why that was ?
Microsoft has often cited " pirated copies " of its software in its market share reports .
Market share was more important to them in the early phases of building critical mass than " losses " to piracy .
It may be pushing it to say that Microsoft even encouraged piracy in those days , but their lack of security measures seemed to express it pretty well .
And the fact that they did it later would seem to suggest they could have done it at any time but chose to wait until they actually achieved critical mass before doing so .
Microsoft never has a " better " package .
They had the more convenient package .
It was installed on their PCs when they bought them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess the US and the EU courts must ALSO look up their definitions of monopoly and reconsider their case history against Microsoft.
Your defense of Microsoft is weak.
Open standard means a standard that is defined clearly and independent of any particular plaform or implementation.
Established/defacto standards?
Yes, we know that DOC and XLS are defacto standards for use in business, but are they even fully defined in a way that can be implemented effectively by others?
Defacto just means that we're currently stuck with it for better or worse.
All this jibber-jabber about open standards is all about trying to get us unstuck.
You either can't see a problem with being stuck with a defacto standard that demands you buy and keep buying the same products over and over again from a single vendor (how else can you define a monopoly?
) or you are simply denying it.In very short time since I changed jobs, I have started changing my company's Microsoft-based approach to everything over to allowing and enabling F/OSS at every point where it works well.
I now have OpenOffice.org on every PC.
I have Firefox on every PC.
I have GiMP and Inkscape on a growing number of PCs.
I even have alternative PDF printer software installed on every PC.
Turns out that for many people, actually most people, OpenOffice's Draw package is the part that people are using.
The company is unwilling to buy Visio licenses just so people can make flow-charts and org-charts any more.
I have showed them that, for the simple work most people do, OO.o is just fine.
Turns out that MSIE 8 doesn't work well with eRoom.
Firefox does.
And our parent company's VPN will require the use of MSIE8 before long.
So we're just being pro-active.
Need eRoom?
Use Firefox.
And while they are at it, Firefox works with just about everything else as well, they find and keep using it.
A few people with needs for graphic type work have been sending out order for business cards and the like to an outside company.
When I discovered that, I showed the people how to take existing files returned by these "graphic professionals" and modify them for changes needed using those simple tools.
The main resistance to that, of course, was the requirement to learn and understand something new.
(Humans don't like change, even when it's good for them!
)  And as for the PDF printer alternatives?
Well, most users think they need Adobe Acrobat when all they want to do is print things to PDF.
Turns out they can use OO.o to generate PDFs and even edit them thanks to some clever addons and print to PDF from any application thanks to a certain Ghostscript based product.While the defacto standard is in place at my office, people's eyes are opening up to F/OSS software and are finding it quite useful and adequate.
You are preaching to the choir by saying that people don't want change.
We all know that.
But when change sort of creeps up on you at a convenient pace, I find it works out quite well.I'm hoping that some government bodies start shifting its output over to open standards more... that'll just make my job all the more easy.BTW, "Make a better package that customers want."?
Seriously?  Microsoft was the last company to put serial number and other protections into their software and they pretty much did it after all the competition was crushed.
Got any clue as to why that was?
Microsoft has often cited "pirated copies" of its software in its market share reports.
Market share was more important to them in the early phases of building critical mass than "losses" to piracy.
It may be pushing it to say that Microsoft even encouraged piracy in those days, but their lack of security measures seemed to express it pretty well.
And the fact that they did it later would seem to suggest they could have done it at any time but chose to wait until they actually achieved critical mass before doing so.
Microsoft never has a "better" package.
They had the more convenient package.
It was installed on their PCs when they bought them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31667674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663272</id>
	<title>Re:War</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269862080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not "war". It's about non-violent totalitarianism, plain and simple. That's what the EU has always been about, and what it will always be about. It's about Germany and France controlling the rest of Europe, without having to resort to destructive wars like in the past. And for the most part, they've succeeded. Germany and France now dictate economic policy for countries like Greece, they dictate social policy, and now they dictate technological policies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not " war " .
It 's about non-violent totalitarianism , plain and simple .
That 's what the EU has always been about , and what it will always be about .
It 's about Germany and France controlling the rest of Europe , without having to resort to destructive wars like in the past .
And for the most part , they 've succeeded .
Germany and France now dictate economic policy for countries like Greece , they dictate social policy , and now they dictate technological policies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not "war".
It's about non-violent totalitarianism, plain and simple.
That's what the EU has always been about, and what it will always be about.
It's about Germany and France controlling the rest of Europe, without having to resort to destructive wars like in the past.
And for the most part, they've succeeded.
Germany and France now dictate economic policy for countries like Greece, they dictate social policy, and now they dictate technological policies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31666828</id>
	<title>Confirmation?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269887700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The French magazine cited for confirmation doesn't say anything about Microsoft.</p><p>So all that leaves is with is that some guy twittered that the bogeyman^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HMicrosoft is coming, and when we look at the latest draft of the Digital Agenda document--its still fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The French magazine cited for confirmation does n't say anything about Microsoft.So all that leaves is with is that some guy twittered that the bogeyman ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ HMicrosoft is coming , and when we look at the latest draft of the Digital Agenda document--its still fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The French magazine cited for confirmation doesn't say anything about Microsoft.So all that leaves is with is that some guy twittered that the bogeyman^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HMicrosoft is coming, and when we look at the latest draft of the Digital Agenda document--its still fine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663764</id>
	<title>Re:Desperation?</title>
	<author>yossarianuk</author>
	<datestamp>1269864780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They seem to be 'harmonising' their opposition Chinese Govt style</p><p>

<a href="http://www.katonda.com/blog/922/microsoft-bing-trying-kill-open-office" title="katonda.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.katonda.com/blog/922/microsoft-bing-trying-kill-open-office</a> [katonda.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They seem to be 'harmonising ' their opposition Chinese Govt style http : //www.katonda.com/blog/922/microsoft-bing-trying-kill-open-office [ katonda.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They seem to be 'harmonising' their opposition Chinese Govt style

http://www.katonda.com/blog/922/microsoft-bing-trying-kill-open-office [katonda.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662766</id>
	<title>Gay</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269859200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're all gay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're all gay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're all gay.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31668260</id>
	<title>Re:War</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1269948900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Microsoft is a corrupt company catering to corrupt politicians.</i> <br> <br>"Corrupt" is a rather redundant adjective when it comes to politicians. Given that this appears to be the most common kind of politician you find in many places, especially where "career politicians" are vastly overrepresented.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft is a corrupt company catering to corrupt politicians .
" Corrupt " is a rather redundant adjective when it comes to politicians .
Given that this appears to be the most common kind of politician you find in many places , especially where " career politicians " are vastly overrepresented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft is a corrupt company catering to corrupt politicians.
"Corrupt" is a rather redundant adjective when it comes to politicians.
Given that this appears to be the most common kind of politician you find in many places, especially where "career politicians" are vastly overrepresented.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31664352</id>
	<title>Re:Engineering new jobs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269867780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ahem. Tilting over to proprietary software won't create more jobs. It will simply just allow vendors to A) sell more copies, and B) increase the amount of money that *leaves* the economy, since most of it would go to out of EU businesses, as opposed to if local companies handled the open source job opportunities. So common sense would dictate that if what you're suggesting, the proprietary vendors should be given the finger. Unfortunately they can pay for better dinners, and more wine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahem .
Tilting over to proprietary software wo n't create more jobs .
It will simply just allow vendors to A ) sell more copies , and B ) increase the amount of money that * leaves * the economy , since most of it would go to out of EU businesses , as opposed to if local companies handled the open source job opportunities .
So common sense would dictate that if what you 're suggesting , the proprietary vendors should be given the finger .
Unfortunately they can pay for better dinners , and more wine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahem.
Tilting over to proprietary software won't create more jobs.
It will simply just allow vendors to A) sell more copies, and B) increase the amount of money that *leaves* the economy, since most of it would go to out of EU businesses, as opposed to if local companies handled the open source job opportunities.
So common sense would dictate that if what you're suggesting, the proprietary vendors should be given the finger.
Unfortunately they can pay for better dinners, and more wine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31667496</id>
	<title>Re:War</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269981960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Problem is, it doesn't even make sense arguing \_against\_ document standardization, nor it makes sense to even immagine a proposal of not having document not using an open standard, as it didn't make sense arguing if savages had or not a soul back then.<br><br>Just immagine if some part of the eu laws were stored and archived as word 93 document - now most of them would be unavailable in their original format and presentation, and some would not even be available in their content.<br><br>But the question is, why on earth you need to specify from scratch a document format again after the problem was solved just from the beginning of the digital era?<br>Do they need to have their document presented in a certain way and printed within a particular specification stable over the years? Latex will work just fine.<br>Do they need to have the document content presented on a wide audience using a readily available and widely diffused format? Html will work just fine.<br>Do you need both? Latex can be emitted both as pdf and html (pdf is an open standard by now).<br><br>Moreover, I can still read the email specification as written by Postel in 1982.<br><br>This is really a problem that has been resolved years ago, and doesn't require research, doesn't require legislations and above all doesn't require political jerks looking for ways to obtain bribes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Problem is , it does n't even make sense arguing \ _against \ _ document standardization , nor it makes sense to even immagine a proposal of not having document not using an open standard , as it did n't make sense arguing if savages had or not a soul back then.Just immagine if some part of the eu laws were stored and archived as word 93 document - now most of them would be unavailable in their original format and presentation , and some would not even be available in their content.But the question is , why on earth you need to specify from scratch a document format again after the problem was solved just from the beginning of the digital era ? Do they need to have their document presented in a certain way and printed within a particular specification stable over the years ?
Latex will work just fine.Do they need to have the document content presented on a wide audience using a readily available and widely diffused format ?
Html will work just fine.Do you need both ?
Latex can be emitted both as pdf and html ( pdf is an open standard by now ) .Moreover , I can still read the email specification as written by Postel in 1982.This is really a problem that has been resolved years ago , and does n't require research , does n't require legislations and above all does n't require political jerks looking for ways to obtain bribes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Problem is, it doesn't even make sense arguing \_against\_ document standardization, nor it makes sense to even immagine a proposal of not having document not using an open standard, as it didn't make sense arguing if savages had or not a soul back then.Just immagine if some part of the eu laws were stored and archived as word 93 document - now most of them would be unavailable in their original format and presentation, and some would not even be available in their content.But the question is, why on earth you need to specify from scratch a document format again after the problem was solved just from the beginning of the digital era?Do they need to have their document presented in a certain way and printed within a particular specification stable over the years?
Latex will work just fine.Do they need to have the document content presented on a wide audience using a readily available and widely diffused format?
Html will work just fine.Do you need both?
Latex can be emitted both as pdf and html (pdf is an open standard by now).Moreover, I can still read the email specification as written by Postel in 1982.This is really a problem that has been resolved years ago, and doesn't require research, doesn't require legislations and above all doesn't require political jerks looking for ways to obtain bribes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31666652</id>
	<title>Overruled</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269885840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We, the IT people in Seoul, South Korea believe otherwise...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We , the IT people in Seoul , South Korea believe otherwise.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We, the IT people in Seoul, South Korea believe otherwise...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31665480</id>
	<title>Re:objection</title>
	<author>juliusbeezer</author>
	<datestamp>1269874920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think European IT has less soul (or at any rate less coherence in its culture) than does the US flava. And dibs where dibs are due: when the Americans put their mind to something (like IT) they really can be rather competent. But there's a lot of German hackers out there who would not agree that they lack soul. And <i> logiciel libre</i> can have <i>une certaine elegance</i>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think European IT has less soul ( or at any rate less coherence in its culture ) than does the US flava .
And dibs where dibs are due : when the Americans put their mind to something ( like IT ) they really can be rather competent .
But there 's a lot of German hackers out there who would not agree that they lack soul .
And logiciel libre can have une certaine elegance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think European IT has less soul (or at any rate less coherence in its culture) than does the US flava.
And dibs where dibs are due: when the Americans put their mind to something (like IT) they really can be rather competent.
But there's a lot of German hackers out there who would not agree that they lack soul.
And  logiciel libre can have une certaine elegance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31667674</id>
	<title>Re:War</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269940860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You need to lookup the definition of Monopoly.  Stop using words you don't actually know the meaning of.  MS was never at any point a monopoly at anything other than selling its own products.</p><p>Abusive, certainly.  Monopoly, never.</p><p>This isn't about Open Standards.  The OSS world and slashdot in particular don't know the meaning of the word.  In this context Open Standard pretty much translates to Our Standard.  If it doesn't fit your perfect little world you throw it out as open or standard, while completely ignoring established/defacto standards because its suits you.</p><p>Make a better package that customers want.</p><p>You can't give it away.  Its that bad that even being free, no one fucking wants it.  TAKE THE HINT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You need to lookup the definition of Monopoly .
Stop using words you do n't actually know the meaning of .
MS was never at any point a monopoly at anything other than selling its own products.Abusive , certainly .
Monopoly , never.This is n't about Open Standards .
The OSS world and slashdot in particular do n't know the meaning of the word .
In this context Open Standard pretty much translates to Our Standard .
If it does n't fit your perfect little world you throw it out as open or standard , while completely ignoring established/defacto standards because its suits you.Make a better package that customers want.You ca n't give it away .
Its that bad that even being free , no one fucking wants it .
TAKE THE HINT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You need to lookup the definition of Monopoly.
Stop using words you don't actually know the meaning of.
MS was never at any point a monopoly at anything other than selling its own products.Abusive, certainly.
Monopoly, never.This isn't about Open Standards.
The OSS world and slashdot in particular don't know the meaning of the word.
In this context Open Standard pretty much translates to Our Standard.
If it doesn't fit your perfect little world you throw it out as open or standard, while completely ignoring established/defacto standards because its suits you.Make a better package that customers want.You can't give it away.
Its that bad that even being free, no one fucking wants it.
TAKE THE HINT.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31665494</id>
	<title>Yo0 Fail it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269875040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">the 3eveloper but many find it</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>the 3eveloper but many find it [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the 3eveloper but many find it [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662940</id>
	<title>Spin doctor much?</title>
	<author>Lunix Nutcase</author>
	<datestamp>1269860160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's clearly very positive about open standards and open source. And then, back in November of last year, a draft version of the revised EIF was leaked [.pdf]. It revealed a staggering re-definition of what openness meant by suggesting that &ldquo;closed&rdquo; was part of the &ldquo;openness continuum&rdquo;:</p></div><p>Except that your claimed new definition doesn't claim that proprietary software is considered "open" and actually spins proprietary software in a very bad light:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>and lie at one end of the spectrum while non-documented, proprietary specifications, proprietary software and the reluctance or resistance to reuse solutions, i.e. the "not invented here" syndrome, lie at the other end.</p></div><p>This definition is funny because one can come up with a number of examples of poor or non-existant documentation, NIH syndrome, a resistance to code reuse within OSS.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's clearly very positive about open standards and open source .
And then , back in November of last year , a draft version of the revised EIF was leaked [ .pdf ] .
It revealed a staggering re-definition of what openness meant by suggesting that    closed    was part of the    openness continuum    : Except that your claimed new definition does n't claim that proprietary software is considered " open " and actually spins proprietary software in a very bad light : and lie at one end of the spectrum while non-documented , proprietary specifications , proprietary software and the reluctance or resistance to reuse solutions , i.e .
the " not invented here " syndrome , lie at the other end.This definition is funny because one can come up with a number of examples of poor or non-existant documentation , NIH syndrome , a resistance to code reuse within OSS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's clearly very positive about open standards and open source.
And then, back in November of last year, a draft version of the revised EIF was leaked [.pdf].
It revealed a staggering re-definition of what openness meant by suggesting that “closed” was part of the “openness continuum”:Except that your claimed new definition doesn't claim that proprietary software is considered "open" and actually spins proprietary software in a very bad light:and lie at one end of the spectrum while non-documented, proprietary specifications, proprietary software and the reluctance or resistance to reuse solutions, i.e.
the "not invented here" syndrome, lie at the other end.This definition is funny because one can come up with a number of examples of poor or non-existant documentation, NIH syndrome, a resistance to code reuse within OSS.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663122</id>
	<title>Re:In AD 2010</title>
	<author>xonar</author>
	<datestamp>1269861060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>2101 = 2010! The japs got it wrong!</htmltext>
<tokenext>2101 = 2010 !
The japs got it wrong !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2101 = 2010!
The japs got it wrong!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663072</id>
	<title>Well for...</title>
	<author>alexborges</author>
	<datestamp>1269860820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... fuck sakes, somebody stop them!</p><p>Even europeans can be bought this easily?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... fuck sakes , somebody stop them ! Even europeans can be bought this easily ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... fuck sakes, somebody stop them!Even europeans can be bought this easily?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31667806</id>
	<title>Re:Desperation?</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1269942660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're so witty and insightful.</p><p>You've realized MS is just like every other company on the planet.</p><p>Congratulations, you've discovered something everyone knew about before MS was even founded.</p><p>I'm really not sure why you seem to think this is unique to MS?  Read Google News for a few days you'll quickly realize its how the world works.  Let me go ahead and political it up some more by pointing out a great example elsewhere:  The health care bill.  Now I don't care if your for it or against it as it stands, I'm not trying to debate the bill.  Just point out that there is one group you never saw bitching about any plan.  That would be the insurance companies.  What you will find if you do some digging is plenty of congress critters who were enjoying themselves along side<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... insurance company  (wait for it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... heres the kicker<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... ) lobbiests.</p><p>Thats right, they have a name for people who do what you're talking about.  Its that common.  Its called lobbying.</p><p>So good for you, 10-20 more years, you might be qualified to vote.  Probably not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're so witty and insightful.You 've realized MS is just like every other company on the planet.Congratulations , you 've discovered something everyone knew about before MS was even founded.I 'm really not sure why you seem to think this is unique to MS ?
Read Google News for a few days you 'll quickly realize its how the world works .
Let me go ahead and political it up some more by pointing out a great example elsewhere : The health care bill .
Now I do n't care if your for it or against it as it stands , I 'm not trying to debate the bill .
Just point out that there is one group you never saw bitching about any plan .
That would be the insurance companies .
What you will find if you do some digging is plenty of congress critters who were enjoying themselves along side ... insurance company ( wait for it ... heres the kicker ... ) lobbiests.Thats right , they have a name for people who do what you 're talking about .
Its that common .
Its called lobbying.So good for you , 10-20 more years , you might be qualified to vote .
Probably not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're so witty and insightful.You've realized MS is just like every other company on the planet.Congratulations, you've discovered something everyone knew about before MS was even founded.I'm really not sure why you seem to think this is unique to MS?
Read Google News for a few days you'll quickly realize its how the world works.
Let me go ahead and political it up some more by pointing out a great example elsewhere:  The health care bill.
Now I don't care if your for it or against it as it stands, I'm not trying to debate the bill.
Just point out that there is one group you never saw bitching about any plan.
That would be the insurance companies.
What you will find if you do some digging is plenty of congress critters who were enjoying themselves along side ... insurance company  (wait for it ... heres the kicker ... ) lobbiests.Thats right, they have a name for people who do what you're talking about.
Its that common.
Its called lobbying.So good for you, 10-20 more years, you might be qualified to vote.
Probably not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31664432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31666516</id>
	<title>Th1s FPt for GNAA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269884280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the wind aapeared TO DECLINE FOR my resignation to get involved in from one folder on Distro is done Here be treated by your start a holy war exploited that. A</htmltext>
<tokenext>the wind aapeared TO DECLINE FOR my resignation to get involved in from one folder on Distro is done Here be treated by your start a holy war exploited that .
A</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the wind aapeared TO DECLINE FOR my resignation to get involved in from one folder on Distro is done Here be treated by your start a holy war exploited that.
A</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663476</id>
	<title>Re:War</title>
	<author>h4rr4r</author>
	<datestamp>1269863100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering the GDP differences between Germany and any other EU nation that is not surprising.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering the GDP differences between Germany and any other EU nation that is not surprising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering the GDP differences between Germany and any other EU nation that is not surprising.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31667776</id>
	<title>Re:Desperation?</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1269942180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.NET had nothing to do with moving everything to the MS cloud.  They hadn't even dreamt up Azure yet, I don't think anyone had even considered the cloud computing retardedness going on now.  It was purely the marketing term for the public to know it as.  It was riding the height of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.COM boom.  But good for you for pretending to know what you're talking about.</p><blockquote><div><p>Which is why it was called<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net in the first place, and why it compiles to byte-code instead of machine code, even though it only is ever run on one architecture and one operating system</p></div></blockquote><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... does that even make sense in your head?  They made it portable<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... so they could run it on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... one architecture type?  No, the reason its compiled to byte code has very little to do with the processor architecture and a whole hell of a lot to do with having a dynamic runtime.  Kind of like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... well pretty much all other dynamic runtimes in existence.  The architecture independance is a nice and intentional side effect.  It means that they can  make  it  a lot easier to run it on multiple OSes on multiple processor architectures.  You do realize that MS has implementations of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET for at least 4 different processor types?  x86, ARM, PPC, and MIPS.  They currently have public implementations for 2 major OS classes, Windows as you know it and WinCE/Mobile/Phone/Dash.  Which while they share a similar API, they are most certainly not the same OS.  It also runs on OS X, though I'm not aware of when it will become publicly available.  Certainly will be when the next Office for Mac is released, and portions of it have been available with Moonlight since at least July of last year.</p><blockquote><div><p>(yeah, Mono, but that wasn't in Microsoft's plans)</p></div></blockquote><p>Actually<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... yea, it was.  You do realize that the CLR and C# are open standards right?   You realize that MS released an open source reference implementation almost 10 years ago now<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... right?  I literally ran<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET code on my FreeBSD machine before a Windows machine.  I presume you think they did all of that and figured that no one every would possibly consider making their own implementation?</p><blockquote><div><p>On the other hand, Microsoft HAS gotten more involved in politics, and that may be what you are observing. They've gotten involved more and more ever since the anti-trust case. I read an article a decade ago discussing how Microsoft realized that to stay out of problems with the government, it helps to 'donate'.</p></div></blockquote><p>Again, contridicting yourself in a single sentence.  I guess you think 'donating' isn't being involved in politics?  Well either way, nothing is new, they've been the same for over 20 years, you just never noticed.  For reference though when you're going to say 'they've changed recently'  don't follow it up with an example from 'a decade' ago of them doing the exact same thing.</p><p>I think you should read your posts before you post if you actually care.  For reference: I don't.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>.NET had nothing to do with moving everything to the MS cloud .
They had n't even dreamt up Azure yet , I do n't think anyone had even considered the cloud computing retardedness going on now .
It was purely the marketing term for the public to know it as .
It was riding the height of the .COM boom .
But good for you for pretending to know what you 're talking about.Which is why it was called .net in the first place , and why it compiles to byte-code instead of machine code , even though it only is ever run on one architecture and one operating system ... does that even make sense in your head ?
They made it portable ... so they could run it on ... one architecture type ?
No , the reason its compiled to byte code has very little to do with the processor architecture and a whole hell of a lot to do with having a dynamic runtime .
Kind of like ... well pretty much all other dynamic runtimes in existence .
The architecture independance is a nice and intentional side effect .
It means that they can make it a lot easier to run it on multiple OSes on multiple processor architectures .
You do realize that MS has implementations of .NET for at least 4 different processor types ?
x86 , ARM , PPC , and MIPS .
They currently have public implementations for 2 major OS classes , Windows as you know it and WinCE/Mobile/Phone/Dash .
Which while they share a similar API , they are most certainly not the same OS .
It also runs on OS X , though I 'm not aware of when it will become publicly available .
Certainly will be when the next Office for Mac is released , and portions of it have been available with Moonlight since at least July of last year .
( yeah , Mono , but that was n't in Microsoft 's plans ) Actually ... yea , it was .
You do realize that the CLR and C # are open standards right ?
You realize that MS released an open source reference implementation almost 10 years ago now ... right ? I literally ran .NET code on my FreeBSD machine before a Windows machine .
I presume you think they did all of that and figured that no one every would possibly consider making their own implementation ? On the other hand , Microsoft HAS gotten more involved in politics , and that may be what you are observing .
They 've gotten involved more and more ever since the anti-trust case .
I read an article a decade ago discussing how Microsoft realized that to stay out of problems with the government , it helps to 'donate'.Again , contridicting yourself in a single sentence .
I guess you think 'donating ' is n't being involved in politics ?
Well either way , nothing is new , they 've been the same for over 20 years , you just never noticed .
For reference though when you 're going to say 'they 've changed recently ' do n't follow it up with an example from 'a decade ' ago of them doing the exact same thing.I think you should read your posts before you post if you actually care .
For reference : I do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.NET had nothing to do with moving everything to the MS cloud.
They hadn't even dreamt up Azure yet, I don't think anyone had even considered the cloud computing retardedness going on now.
It was purely the marketing term for the public to know it as.
It was riding the height of the .COM boom.
But good for you for pretending to know what you're talking about.Which is why it was called .net in the first place, and why it compiles to byte-code instead of machine code, even though it only is ever run on one architecture and one operating system ... does that even make sense in your head?
They made it portable ... so they could run it on ... one architecture type?
No, the reason its compiled to byte code has very little to do with the processor architecture and a whole hell of a lot to do with having a dynamic runtime.
Kind of like ... well pretty much all other dynamic runtimes in existence.
The architecture independance is a nice and intentional side effect.
It means that they can  make  it  a lot easier to run it on multiple OSes on multiple processor architectures.
You do realize that MS has implementations of .NET for at least 4 different processor types?
x86, ARM, PPC, and MIPS.
They currently have public implementations for 2 major OS classes, Windows as you know it and WinCE/Mobile/Phone/Dash.
Which while they share a similar API, they are most certainly not the same OS.
It also runs on OS X, though I'm not aware of when it will become publicly available.
Certainly will be when the next Office for Mac is released, and portions of it have been available with Moonlight since at least July of last year.
(yeah, Mono, but that wasn't in Microsoft's plans)Actually ... yea, it was.
You do realize that the CLR and C# are open standards right?
You realize that MS released an open source reference implementation almost 10 years ago now ... right?  I literally ran .NET code on my FreeBSD machine before a Windows machine.
I presume you think they did all of that and figured that no one every would possibly consider making their own implementation?On the other hand, Microsoft HAS gotten more involved in politics, and that may be what you are observing.
They've gotten involved more and more ever since the anti-trust case.
I read an article a decade ago discussing how Microsoft realized that to stay out of problems with the government, it helps to 'donate'.Again, contridicting yourself in a single sentence.
I guess you think 'donating' isn't being involved in politics?
Well either way, nothing is new, they've been the same for over 20 years, you just never noticed.
For reference though when you're going to say 'they've changed recently'  don't follow it up with an example from 'a decade' ago of them doing the exact same thing.I think you should read your posts before you post if you actually care.
For reference: I don't.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31667452</id>
	<title>Re:War</title>
	<author>Mana Mana</author>
	<datestamp>1269981480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In accord to your sentiment: Why would any self-respecting European want to be beholden to a foreign mega corporation? One from the USA especially?</p><p>I know, masochism.</p><p>Analogous. I've always wondered why the ferocity of free marketeers? to protect northwest US old-forest loggers (a commodity business, who wants to be in that racket. Finite one at that, but, yet rail against the car makers, the steel makers and workers. Since the 1980s I've yet ever to see a rational lucid explanation of that one. Less you be facile, they all donated big bucks to Republicans, laissez faire types, at one time. mmm'k), an old tech industry.</p><p>Relatively low market cap in relation, low number jobs creation in relation, exportation numbers low in relation.</p><p>What is it the macho, frontiersman mystique. That would be my guess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In accord to your sentiment : Why would any self-respecting European want to be beholden to a foreign mega corporation ?
One from the USA especially ? I know , masochism.Analogous .
I 've always wondered why the ferocity of free marketeers ?
to protect northwest US old-forest loggers ( a commodity business , who wants to be in that racket .
Finite one at that , but , yet rail against the car makers , the steel makers and workers .
Since the 1980s I 've yet ever to see a rational lucid explanation of that one .
Less you be facile , they all donated big bucks to Republicans , laissez faire types , at one time .
mmm'k ) , an old tech industry.Relatively low market cap in relation , low number jobs creation in relation , exportation numbers low in relation.What is it the macho , frontiersman mystique .
That would be my guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In accord to your sentiment: Why would any self-respecting European want to be beholden to a foreign mega corporation?
One from the USA especially?I know, masochism.Analogous.
I've always wondered why the ferocity of free marketeers?
to protect northwest US old-forest loggers (a commodity business, who wants to be in that racket.
Finite one at that, but, yet rail against the car makers, the steel makers and workers.
Since the 1980s I've yet ever to see a rational lucid explanation of that one.
Less you be facile, they all donated big bucks to Republicans, laissez faire types, at one time.
mmm'k), an old tech industry.Relatively low market cap in relation, low number jobs creation in relation, exportation numbers low in relation.What is it the macho, frontiersman mystique.
That would be my guess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663034</id>
	<title>Re:Importance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269860580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> BSA tries to ensure that EU bureaucracy would use the software of the companies it represents, in the case mainly Microsoft and namely M$Office. Wanna send a paper to a ministry electronically? Gotta buy the WinWord.

</p><p> One has to carefully weigh all the factors: bribes one can get off M$ right now + bribes one can get off M$ later vs.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... On second thought, forget about the open thing we have discussed before.

</p><p> P.S. <a href="http://fsfe.org/projects/os/eifv2.en.html" title="fsfe.org">FSFE take on the case</a> [fsfe.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BSA tries to ensure that EU bureaucracy would use the software of the companies it represents , in the case mainly Microsoft and namely M $ Office .
Wan na send a paper to a ministry electronically ?
Got ta buy the WinWord .
One has to carefully weigh all the factors : bribes one can get off M $ right now + bribes one can get off M $ later vs. ... On second thought , forget about the open thing we have discussed before .
P.S. FSFE take on the case [ fsfe.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> BSA tries to ensure that EU bureaucracy would use the software of the companies it represents, in the case mainly Microsoft and namely M$Office.
Wanna send a paper to a ministry electronically?
Gotta buy the WinWord.
One has to carefully weigh all the factors: bribes one can get off M$ right now + bribes one can get off M$ later vs. ... On second thought, forget about the open thing we have discussed before.
P.S. FSFE take on the case [fsfe.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663396</id>
	<title>I told y'all, I'm right again, dang it!</title>
	<author>OldHawk777</author>
	<datestamp>1269862800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>EU is more like US than y'all think.</p><p>The EU Corporate-Welfare government is against you.<br>The US Corporate-Welfare government is against us.</p><p>Government politicians and appointees are well paid (in trade or money) to provide substantial and legal Corporate-Welfare too FuckUS and FuckEU.</p><p>It ain't people democracy or merit capitalism in the US, EU, RURU, China.... Yep, life is hard, but you can always eat-shit die before or after the next global-recession (that ain't their darn fault).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>EU is more like US than y'all think.The EU Corporate-Welfare government is against you.The US Corporate-Welfare government is against us.Government politicians and appointees are well paid ( in trade or money ) to provide substantial and legal Corporate-Welfare too FuckUS and FuckEU.It ai n't people democracy or merit capitalism in the US , EU , RURU , China.... Yep , life is hard , but you can always eat-shit die before or after the next global-recession ( that ai n't their darn fault ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>EU is more like US than y'all think.The EU Corporate-Welfare government is against you.The US Corporate-Welfare government is against us.Government politicians and appointees are well paid (in trade or money) to provide substantial and legal Corporate-Welfare too FuckUS and FuckEU.It ain't people democracy or merit capitalism in the US, EU, RURU, China.... Yep, life is hard, but you can always eat-shit die before or after the next global-recession (that ain't their darn fault).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31668498</id>
	<title>Ok, Microsoft is digging its own grave</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269951900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nelie Kroes is pretty annoyed with them. They got a very, very big fine for misbehaving and tried to get away, using all kinds of tactics, from paying. Now they are trying to apply corruption, to the same person which fought long and hard to give them that fine? I wonder how long it'll take Microsoft to figure out that she's not very charmed by their behavior.</p><p>Here's for hoping that "favor open" turns into "require open". It would be consistent with her earlier behavior; making the right choice even when all kinds of pressure are applied to her.</p><p>She's the right person in the right place, lets just hope Microsoft applies enough pressure that she gets really pissed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nelie Kroes is pretty annoyed with them .
They got a very , very big fine for misbehaving and tried to get away , using all kinds of tactics , from paying .
Now they are trying to apply corruption , to the same person which fought long and hard to give them that fine ?
I wonder how long it 'll take Microsoft to figure out that she 's not very charmed by their behavior.Here 's for hoping that " favor open " turns into " require open " .
It would be consistent with her earlier behavior ; making the right choice even when all kinds of pressure are applied to her.She 's the right person in the right place , lets just hope Microsoft applies enough pressure that she gets really pissed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nelie Kroes is pretty annoyed with them.
They got a very, very big fine for misbehaving and tried to get away, using all kinds of tactics, from paying.
Now they are trying to apply corruption, to the same person which fought long and hard to give them that fine?
I wonder how long it'll take Microsoft to figure out that she's not very charmed by their behavior.Here's for hoping that "favor open" turns into "require open".
It would be consistent with her earlier behavior; making the right choice even when all kinds of pressure are applied to her.She's the right person in the right place, lets just hope Microsoft applies enough pressure that she gets really pissed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663536</id>
	<title>Great!</title>
	<author>hallucinogen</author>
	<datestamp>1269863400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apparently the European Digital Agenda Commissioner (2010-2014) is a 70 year old woman who according to her <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/commission\_2010-2014/kroes/about/cv/index\_en.htm" title="europa.eu" rel="nofollow">webpage</a> [europa.eu] has "an ongoing interest in mental health issues." Seriously? They couldn't find anyone more qualified? How many 70 year old people are there who even know what open source means? I'm not an ageist nor a sexist, but I'm pretty sure about all of my friends would have been more qualified to this particular job.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently the European Digital Agenda Commissioner ( 2010-2014 ) is a 70 year old woman who according to her webpage [ europa.eu ] has " an ongoing interest in mental health issues .
" Seriously ?
They could n't find anyone more qualified ?
How many 70 year old people are there who even know what open source means ?
I 'm not an ageist nor a sexist , but I 'm pretty sure about all of my friends would have been more qualified to this particular job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently the European Digital Agenda Commissioner (2010-2014) is a 70 year old woman who according to her webpage [europa.eu] has "an ongoing interest in mental health issues.
" Seriously?
They couldn't find anyone more qualified?
How many 70 year old people are there who even know what open source means?
I'm not an ageist nor a sexist, but I'm pretty sure about all of my friends would have been more qualified to this particular job.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31669142</id>
	<title>Probably because you're a simpleton</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269957420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now stop wasting everyone's time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now stop wasting everyone 's time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now stop wasting everyone's time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662838</id>
	<title>Desperation?</title>
	<author>TheSovereign</author>
	<datestamp>1269859680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is it me or does Microsoft seem to be getting more and more desperate for control?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it me or does Microsoft seem to be getting more and more desperate for control ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it me or does Microsoft seem to be getting more and more desperate for control?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31668214</id>
	<title>Re:War</title>
	<author>metacell</author>
	<datestamp>1269948240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft is a de facto monopoly in the market for operating systems for personal computers, in the market for office applicatons, and probably a few more. A de facto monopoly is usually defined as having near 100\% of the market, not exactly 100\%, since the last few \% make little difference.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft is a de facto monopoly in the market for operating systems for personal computers , in the market for office applicatons , and probably a few more .
A de facto monopoly is usually defined as having near 100 \ % of the market , not exactly 100 \ % , since the last few \ % make little difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft is a de facto monopoly in the market for operating systems for personal computers, in the market for office applicatons, and probably a few more.
A de facto monopoly is usually defined as having near 100\% of the market, not exactly 100\%, since the last few \% make little difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31667674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663278</id>
	<title>Re:Importance</title>
	<author>chrb</author>
	<datestamp>1269862080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The leaked "Digital Agenda" doesn't appear to be so bad.. it mainly aims to promote cross-border interoperable electronic ID, health systems, and open standards in general. This will make it easier for European citizens to trade and physically relocate across borders (the existing systems are different in every country, and moving between countries is a PITA). The reason this kind of stuff is important is that the aims and details will be hammered out at a European level, then implemented as policy by the various counties of Europe. Once a few of the more powerful countries (Germany, France, UK) establish a common framework for digital ID or whatever, it will be required to interact with government online services in those countries, a software ecosystem will develop around these protocols, and the other countries will follow within a few years. The EU will provide funding for development of software platforms that implement these open standards. The potential risk here is that Microsoft and other companies will twist the definition of "open" to include proprietary patented protocols (which are "open" because you are free to license them at some cost), and then they can lobby countries and companies taking part in public sector procurements to choose closed standard solutions, which would obviously be a bad thing for cross-border interoperability. The relevant parts of the document are:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The Digital Agenda outlines a set of crucial policy actions, including legal measures and programmes that must be launched or upgraded to get the Union on track. The actions are clustered in six areas:<br>(1)Very fast internet access;<br>(2)A digital single market;<br>(3)A sustainable digital society;<br>(4)Trust and security;<br>(5)Research and innovation;<br>(6)Open standards and interoperability.</p><p>Use CIP support seamless cross-border public services, based on open and internationally recognised standards, and a European eID management infrastructure;</p><p>An "EU eHealth Passport" could give citizens secure online access to their personal health data. On such a platform, improved medical services can be developed raising efficiency and patient empowerment. The Commission will work with the competent authorities to equip 15\% of Europeans with such passports by 2015. The eHealth Lead Market Initiative1 will promote standardisation and interoperability testing and certification.</p><p>Electronic identity (eID) technologies and services are key to trust in electronic transactions and in e-payment systems, including mobile payments. A European framework for eID and authentication, and internationally agreed standards and practices can help the cross-border recognition of eID and increase citizens' trust and confidence. A European eID and authentication framework by [.] is the headline target for this action area.</p><p>Promoting more open standards<br>The headline target for this action area is to reform the EU standardisation regime by 2015 to reflect the rise and growing importance of ICT standards developed by various fora and consortia, in particular as regards the internet.<br><b>Another challenge is to ensure that public authorities &ndash; including the EU institutions &ndash; can make the best use of the full range of existing open standards when procuring hardware, software and IT services, for example to adhere to technology neutrality and to avoid technological lock-in to legacy ICT</b>.<br>Transparent disclosure rules for intellectual property rights (IPR) and licensing conditions in the context of standard-setting can contribute to lower royalty demands for the use of standards and thus to lower market entry costs for SMEs. This can be achieved without a negative impact on the owners of IPRs. Therefore rules for ex-ante disclosure of essential IPR and licensing terms and conditions will be promoted.<br>Key actions<br>Reform the governance system for ICT standards in Europe to recognise ICT fora and consortia standards;<br><b>Issue a Recommendation to streamline the use of open standards in public services and public procurement;</b><br>Promote appropriate rules for ex-ante disclosure of intellectual property rights and license conditions in standard-setting;<br>Update the European Interoperability Framework to promote an open approach to technology and interoperability;<br>Examine the feasibility of measures to promote interoperability with applications based on de facto standards;<br><b>Promote the development of open standards for new applications and services by supporting industry-led platforms through EU-funded programmes.</b></p><p>ICT drives value creation and growth across the economy. It represents over 25\% of value added in automotive, over 40\% in consumer electronics and home appliances and 33\% in health and medical equipment. This means that industry is increasingly in need of open and interoperable solutions to exploit ICT across all sectors. Industry-led platforms <b>promoting the development of open standards for new applications and services will be supported as an integral part of EU-funded programmes</b>.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The leaked " Digital Agenda " does n't appear to be so bad.. it mainly aims to promote cross-border interoperable electronic ID , health systems , and open standards in general .
This will make it easier for European citizens to trade and physically relocate across borders ( the existing systems are different in every country , and moving between countries is a PITA ) .
The reason this kind of stuff is important is that the aims and details will be hammered out at a European level , then implemented as policy by the various counties of Europe .
Once a few of the more powerful countries ( Germany , France , UK ) establish a common framework for digital ID or whatever , it will be required to interact with government online services in those countries , a software ecosystem will develop around these protocols , and the other countries will follow within a few years .
The EU will provide funding for development of software platforms that implement these open standards .
The potential risk here is that Microsoft and other companies will twist the definition of " open " to include proprietary patented protocols ( which are " open " because you are free to license them at some cost ) , and then they can lobby countries and companies taking part in public sector procurements to choose closed standard solutions , which would obviously be a bad thing for cross-border interoperability .
The relevant parts of the document are : The Digital Agenda outlines a set of crucial policy actions , including legal measures and programmes that must be launched or upgraded to get the Union on track .
The actions are clustered in six areas : ( 1 ) Very fast internet access ; ( 2 ) A digital single market ; ( 3 ) A sustainable digital society ; ( 4 ) Trust and security ; ( 5 ) Research and innovation ; ( 6 ) Open standards and interoperability.Use CIP support seamless cross-border public services , based on open and internationally recognised standards , and a European eID management infrastructure ; An " EU eHealth Passport " could give citizens secure online access to their personal health data .
On such a platform , improved medical services can be developed raising efficiency and patient empowerment .
The Commission will work with the competent authorities to equip 15 \ % of Europeans with such passports by 2015 .
The eHealth Lead Market Initiative1 will promote standardisation and interoperability testing and certification.Electronic identity ( eID ) technologies and services are key to trust in electronic transactions and in e-payment systems , including mobile payments .
A European framework for eID and authentication , and internationally agreed standards and practices can help the cross-border recognition of eID and increase citizens ' trust and confidence .
A European eID and authentication framework by [ .
] is the headline target for this action area.Promoting more open standardsThe headline target for this action area is to reform the EU standardisation regime by 2015 to reflect the rise and growing importance of ICT standards developed by various fora and consortia , in particular as regards the internet.Another challenge is to ensure that public authorities    including the EU institutions    can make the best use of the full range of existing open standards when procuring hardware , software and IT services , for example to adhere to technology neutrality and to avoid technological lock-in to legacy ICT.Transparent disclosure rules for intellectual property rights ( IPR ) and licensing conditions in the context of standard-setting can contribute to lower royalty demands for the use of standards and thus to lower market entry costs for SMEs .
This can be achieved without a negative impact on the owners of IPRs .
Therefore rules for ex-ante disclosure of essential IPR and licensing terms and conditions will be promoted.Key actionsReform the governance system for ICT standards in Europe to recognise ICT fora and consortia standards ; Issue a Recommendation to streamline the use of open standards in public services and public procurement ; Promote appropriate rules for ex-ante disclosure of intellectual property rights and license conditions in standard-setting ; Update the European Interoperability Framework to promote an open approach to technology and interoperability ; Examine the feasibility of measures to promote interoperability with applications based on de facto standards ; Promote the development of open standards for new applications and services by supporting industry-led platforms through EU-funded programmes.ICT drives value creation and growth across the economy .
It represents over 25 \ % of value added in automotive , over 40 \ % in consumer electronics and home appliances and 33 \ % in health and medical equipment .
This means that industry is increasingly in need of open and interoperable solutions to exploit ICT across all sectors .
Industry-led platforms promoting the development of open standards for new applications and services will be supported as an integral part of EU-funded programmes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The leaked "Digital Agenda" doesn't appear to be so bad.. it mainly aims to promote cross-border interoperable electronic ID, health systems, and open standards in general.
This will make it easier for European citizens to trade and physically relocate across borders (the existing systems are different in every country, and moving between countries is a PITA).
The reason this kind of stuff is important is that the aims and details will be hammered out at a European level, then implemented as policy by the various counties of Europe.
Once a few of the more powerful countries (Germany, France, UK) establish a common framework for digital ID or whatever, it will be required to interact with government online services in those countries, a software ecosystem will develop around these protocols, and the other countries will follow within a few years.
The EU will provide funding for development of software platforms that implement these open standards.
The potential risk here is that Microsoft and other companies will twist the definition of "open" to include proprietary patented protocols (which are "open" because you are free to license them at some cost), and then they can lobby countries and companies taking part in public sector procurements to choose closed standard solutions, which would obviously be a bad thing for cross-border interoperability.
The relevant parts of the document are:The Digital Agenda outlines a set of crucial policy actions, including legal measures and programmes that must be launched or upgraded to get the Union on track.
The actions are clustered in six areas:(1)Very fast internet access;(2)A digital single market;(3)A sustainable digital society;(4)Trust and security;(5)Research and innovation;(6)Open standards and interoperability.Use CIP support seamless cross-border public services, based on open and internationally recognised standards, and a European eID management infrastructure;An "EU eHealth Passport" could give citizens secure online access to their personal health data.
On such a platform, improved medical services can be developed raising efficiency and patient empowerment.
The Commission will work with the competent authorities to equip 15\% of Europeans with such passports by 2015.
The eHealth Lead Market Initiative1 will promote standardisation and interoperability testing and certification.Electronic identity (eID) technologies and services are key to trust in electronic transactions and in e-payment systems, including mobile payments.
A European framework for eID and authentication, and internationally agreed standards and practices can help the cross-border recognition of eID and increase citizens' trust and confidence.
A European eID and authentication framework by [.
] is the headline target for this action area.Promoting more open standardsThe headline target for this action area is to reform the EU standardisation regime by 2015 to reflect the rise and growing importance of ICT standards developed by various fora and consortia, in particular as regards the internet.Another challenge is to ensure that public authorities – including the EU institutions – can make the best use of the full range of existing open standards when procuring hardware, software and IT services, for example to adhere to technology neutrality and to avoid technological lock-in to legacy ICT.Transparent disclosure rules for intellectual property rights (IPR) and licensing conditions in the context of standard-setting can contribute to lower royalty demands for the use of standards and thus to lower market entry costs for SMEs.
This can be achieved without a negative impact on the owners of IPRs.
Therefore rules for ex-ante disclosure of essential IPR and licensing terms and conditions will be promoted.Key actionsReform the governance system for ICT standards in Europe to recognise ICT fora and consortia standards;Issue a Recommendation to streamline the use of open standards in public services and public procurement;Promote appropriate rules for ex-ante disclosure of intellectual property rights and license conditions in standard-setting;Update the European Interoperability Framework to promote an open approach to technology and interoperability;Examine the feasibility of measures to promote interoperability with applications based on de facto standards;Promote the development of open standards for new applications and services by supporting industry-led platforms through EU-funded programmes.ICT drives value creation and growth across the economy.
It represents over 25\% of value added in automotive, over 40\% in consumer electronics and home appliances and 33\% in health and medical equipment.
This means that industry is increasingly in need of open and interoperable solutions to exploit ICT across all sectors.
Industry-led platforms promoting the development of open standards for new applications and services will be supported as an integral part of EU-funded programmes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662920</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2115235_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31668652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2115235_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2115235_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31665480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2115235_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31667946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2115235_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31668172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31667674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2115235_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31667396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2115235_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31667452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2115235_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31667776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2115235_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31668214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31667674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2115235_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2115235_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2115235_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2115235_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2115235_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31667758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2115235_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31667990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2115235_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2115235_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2115235_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2115235_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31668450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2115235_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31664352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2115235_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2115235_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31666570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2115235_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31667806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31664432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2115235_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31664014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2115235_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31665398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2115235_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31667496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2115235_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31669142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2115235_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2115235_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2115235_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31668260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2115235_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31669996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31667674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2115235_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31666652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2115235_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31667966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2115235_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31667944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2115235_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2115235_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31668762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_2115235.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663272
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663476
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31666570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31669142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663752
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31668762
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31667674
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31668214
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31668172
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31669996
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31667396
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31667496
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31667452
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31668260
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31668450
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_2115235.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31665164
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_2115235.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31664016
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_2115235.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31667758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31665480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31666652
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_2115235.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663034
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31667946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663060
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_2115235.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31665398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31668652
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_2115235.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31666828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_2115235.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663062
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31667966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663236
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_2115235.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663110
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_2115235.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663814
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31667944
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31667776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31664432
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31667806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663260
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_2115235.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663214
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_2115235.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663390
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_2115235.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31664014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663028
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31667990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663122
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_2115235.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31668498
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_2115235.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31663570
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_2115235.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31662968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2115235.31664352
</commentlist>
</conversation>
