<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_30_209247</id>
	<title>Adobe Flash Now Officially a Part of Google Chrome</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1269942360000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>MacGene noted that Google has announced plans to <a href="http://blog.chromium.org/2010/03/bringing-improved-support-for-adobe.html">include Flash with Chrome</a>.  This step will make Chrome easier for Mom &amp; Pop to use, but comes with a host of issues that have been discussed here before.  I expect them to announce Silverlight Thursday.</htmltext>
<tokenext>MacGene noted that Google has announced plans to include Flash with Chrome .
This step will make Chrome easier for Mom &amp; Pop to use , but comes with a host of issues that have been discussed here before .
I expect them to announce Silverlight Thursday .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MacGene noted that Google has announced plans to include Flash with Chrome.
This step will make Chrome easier for Mom &amp; Pop to use, but comes with a host of issues that have been discussed here before.
I expect them to announce Silverlight Thursday.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678756</id>
	<title>Re:I'm ok with it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269948660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"99\% of people"</p><p>I love made-up, exaggerated statistics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" 99 \ % of people " I love made-up , exaggerated statistics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"99\% of people"I love made-up, exaggerated statistics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678288</id>
	<title>auto update?</title>
	<author>swanzilla</author>
	<datestamp>1269946620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>FTFA:<p><div class="quote"><p>Users will automatically receive updates related to Flash Player using Google Chrome&rsquo;s auto-update mechanism. This eliminates the need to manually download separate updates and reduces the security risk of using outdated versions.</p></div><p>How about a prompt?  Anything that employs automatic updates makes me uneasy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTFA : Users will automatically receive updates related to Flash Player using Google Chrome    s auto-update mechanism .
This eliminates the need to manually download separate updates and reduces the security risk of using outdated versions.How about a prompt ?
Anything that employs automatic updates makes me uneasy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTFA:Users will automatically receive updates related to Flash Player using Google Chrome’s auto-update mechanism.
This eliminates the need to manually download separate updates and reduces the security risk of using outdated versions.How about a prompt?
Anything that employs automatic updates makes me uneasy.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678160</id>
	<title>I'm ok with it.</title>
	<author>Toonol</author>
	<datestamp>1269946140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The inclusion of Flash doesn't generate any issues that every other browser doesn't have.  Since 99\% of people end up installing Flash, it's probably just as well to include it.  Those people who don't want it are all computer savvy enough to turn it off; for the rest, it's a service to have it included.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The inclusion of Flash does n't generate any issues that every other browser does n't have .
Since 99 \ % of people end up installing Flash , it 's probably just as well to include it .
Those people who do n't want it are all computer savvy enough to turn it off ; for the rest , it 's a service to have it included .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The inclusion of Flash doesn't generate any issues that every other browser doesn't have.
Since 99\% of people end up installing Flash, it's probably just as well to include it.
Those people who don't want it are all computer savvy enough to turn it off; for the rest, it's a service to have it included.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31681026</id>
	<title>thanks ...</title>
	<author>CALI-BANG</author>
	<datestamp>1269959100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.. it helps me what browser's to stick too.</p><p>i don't hate flash, but there are some flash ads that resources hungry, so flash ends up in Disabled Plugins directory.</p><p>the moment i can't disable, i'll go back to firefox.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.. it helps me what browser 's to stick too.i do n't hate flash , but there are some flash ads that resources hungry , so flash ends up in Disabled Plugins directory.the moment i ca n't disable , i 'll go back to firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.. it helps me what browser's to stick too.i don't hate flash, but there are some flash ads that resources hungry, so flash ends up in Disabled Plugins directory.the moment i can't disable, i'll go back to firefox.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31679554</id>
	<title>Re:The problem is that it promotes the use of Flas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269952260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Flash should not be promoted, especially by a company like Google. Flash is not an example of a beneficial technology.</p></div><p>Why should Flash be demoted by a company like Apple? Promoting a successful (and free to the consumer) propriety technology is no worse than disabling it for your own selfish business purposes.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Technologies like Flash, Silverlight, and Java applets need to die out. They should not be used, and companies like Google, who have lots of intelligent engineering talent, should not be pressing for its use.</p></div><p>Why? If it weren't for applets and Flash, innovation on the Internet would be stale. The state of the Internet would be 15 years behind. There would be no Penny Arcade, no Youtube, no Hulu, no Facebook apps. The only reason open technologies are approaching (barely) what Flash can do now is because Flash paved the way.</p><p>Don't you know how this usually works? Companies see a chance for profit, develop a proprietary technology and are successful for many years. Then over the years open source copy feature after feature until they reach parity, upon which the open source version might be successful. In fact, it's a miracle that the web as we know it was developed upon open source technologies like HTML, CSS, and the like.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Flash should not be promoted , especially by a company like Google .
Flash is not an example of a beneficial technology.Why should Flash be demoted by a company like Apple ?
Promoting a successful ( and free to the consumer ) propriety technology is no worse than disabling it for your own selfish business purposes.Technologies like Flash , Silverlight , and Java applets need to die out .
They should not be used , and companies like Google , who have lots of intelligent engineering talent , should not be pressing for its use.Why ?
If it were n't for applets and Flash , innovation on the Internet would be stale .
The state of the Internet would be 15 years behind .
There would be no Penny Arcade , no Youtube , no Hulu , no Facebook apps .
The only reason open technologies are approaching ( barely ) what Flash can do now is because Flash paved the way.Do n't you know how this usually works ?
Companies see a chance for profit , develop a proprietary technology and are successful for many years .
Then over the years open source copy feature after feature until they reach parity , upon which the open source version might be successful .
In fact , it 's a miracle that the web as we know it was developed upon open source technologies like HTML , CSS , and the like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flash should not be promoted, especially by a company like Google.
Flash is not an example of a beneficial technology.Why should Flash be demoted by a company like Apple?
Promoting a successful (and free to the consumer) propriety technology is no worse than disabling it for your own selfish business purposes.Technologies like Flash, Silverlight, and Java applets need to die out.
They should not be used, and companies like Google, who have lots of intelligent engineering talent, should not be pressing for its use.Why?
If it weren't for applets and Flash, innovation on the Internet would be stale.
The state of the Internet would be 15 years behind.
There would be no Penny Arcade, no Youtube, no Hulu, no Facebook apps.
The only reason open technologies are approaching (barely) what Flash can do now is because Flash paved the way.Don't you know how this usually works?
Companies see a chance for profit, develop a proprietary technology and are successful for many years.
Then over the years open source copy feature after feature until they reach parity, upon which the open source version might be successful.
In fact, it's a miracle that the web as we know it was developed upon open source technologies like HTML, CSS, and the like.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31685106</id>
	<title>Re:Pre-emptive move against HTML5?</title>
	<author>Salsaman</author>
	<datestamp>1270034820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, as long as browsers start to provide html 5 support there isn't a problem. Sites can be upgraded to serve html 5 video, with fallback to flash if the browser doesn't support it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , as long as browsers start to provide html 5 support there is n't a problem .
Sites can be upgraded to serve html 5 video , with fallback to flash if the browser does n't support it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, as long as browsers start to provide html 5 support there isn't a problem.
Sites can be upgraded to serve html 5 video, with fallback to flash if the browser doesn't support it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31679568</id>
	<title>bit3h</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269952320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">is mired in an To its laid-back Failure, its corpse perform kkeping 1n ratio of 5 to the same operation Resound as fitting</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>is mired in an To its laid-back Failure , its corpse perform kkeping 1n ratio of 5 to the same operation Resound as fitting [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is mired in an To its laid-back Failure, its corpse perform kkeping 1n ratio of 5 to the same operation Resound as fitting [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31682210</id>
	<title>Re:I'm ok with it.</title>
	<author>perryizgr8</author>
	<datestamp>1269965580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>no, i was hoping chrome would encourage html5 instead. but it looks like flash is too powerful even for the mighty google.</htmltext>
<tokenext>no , i was hoping chrome would encourage html5 instead .
but it looks like flash is too powerful even for the mighty google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no, i was hoping chrome would encourage html5 instead.
but it looks like flash is too powerful even for the mighty google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31682306</id>
	<title>Re:I'm ok with it.</title>
	<author>perryizgr8</author>
	<datestamp>1269966120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>The inclusion of Flash doesn't generate any issues that every other browser doesn't have.</p></div></blockquote><p>At this point the most significant security hole in web browsing <b>are Adobe products</b>, so yes, it does add problems every other browser doesn't have.</p></div><p>FTFY</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The inclusion of Flash does n't generate any issues that every other browser does n't have.At this point the most significant security hole in web browsing are Adobe products , so yes , it does add problems every other browser does n't have.FTFY</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The inclusion of Flash doesn't generate any issues that every other browser doesn't have.At this point the most significant security hole in web browsing are Adobe products, so yes, it does add problems every other browser doesn't have.FTFY
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678150</id>
	<title>It's a great idea.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269946080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like it and they should do it</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like it and they should do it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like it and they should do it</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31681850</id>
	<title>New Plug-in API</title>
	<author>BlueBoxSW.com</author>
	<datestamp>1269963360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A large point of the story was the development, by Google and Adobe, of a new standard for creating plugins.</p><p>Did anyone else find this the most interesting part of the story?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A large point of the story was the development , by Google and Adobe , of a new standard for creating plugins.Did anyone else find this the most interesting part of the story ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A large point of the story was the development, by Google and Adobe, of a new standard for creating plugins.Did anyone else find this the most interesting part of the story?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31682286</id>
	<title>Re:The problem is that it promotes the use of Flas</title>
	<author>perryizgr8</author>
	<datestamp>1269966000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the problem with flash video is that it stutters on my core duo laptop running a fully updated ubuntu 9.10. by the way, compiz runs perfectly on the same laptop.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the problem with flash video is that it stutters on my core duo laptop running a fully updated ubuntu 9.10. by the way , compiz runs perfectly on the same laptop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the problem with flash video is that it stutters on my core duo laptop running a fully updated ubuntu 9.10. by the way, compiz runs perfectly on the same laptop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31679554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31680384</id>
	<title>Re:I'm ok with it.</title>
	<author>zero0ne</author>
	<datestamp>1269955860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe that is why they included it within the browser? So they can correctly sandbox it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe that is why they included it within the browser ?
So they can correctly sandbox it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe that is why they included it within the browser?
So they can correctly sandbox it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678666</id>
	<title>Re:Silverlight?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269948240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Use what you want and I'll use what you want.</p><p>Keep you holier-than-thou "so shouldn't anyone else" bullshit to yourself."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Use what you want and I 'll use what you want.Keep you holier-than-thou " so should n't anyone else " bullshit to yourself .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use what you want and I'll use what you want.Keep you holier-than-thou "so shouldn't anyone else" bullshit to yourself.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31684388</id>
	<title>Re:Silverlight?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270027800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because nobody uses it and it's a waste of space and administration overhead?</p><p>The only sites I ever even heard of using it are 2-3 US-only examples that get mentioned over and over, because they are the only ones. Other than that nobody uses it, especially in the rest of the world. Heck even MS often only uses it as an alternative to Javascript or Flash because they know nobody has it installed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because nobody uses it and it 's a waste of space and administration overhead ? The only sites I ever even heard of using it are 2-3 US-only examples that get mentioned over and over , because they are the only ones .
Other than that nobody uses it , especially in the rest of the world .
Heck even MS often only uses it as an alternative to Javascript or Flash because they know nobody has it installed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because nobody uses it and it's a waste of space and administration overhead?The only sites I ever even heard of using it are 2-3 US-only examples that get mentioned over and over, because they are the only ones.
Other than that nobody uses it, especially in the rest of the world.
Heck even MS often only uses it as an alternative to Javascript or Flash because they know nobody has it installed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31679710</id>
	<title>Re:I'm ok with it.</title>
	<author>StikyPad</author>
	<datestamp>1269952980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I love made-up, exaggerated statistics.</i></p><p>Wow, if you feel that strongly about made up statistics, you must really blow a load when you see <a href="http://www.adobe.com/products/player\_census/flashplayer/" title="adobe.com">real statistics</a> [adobe.com] then.  And before you shoot the messenger (Adobe) as the source for information about their own products, note that Shockwave is listed at 52\%.</p><p>Look, I know there are people who don't install Flash -- both of them are quite vocal here on Slashdot -- but for everyone else it's one of the first Add-Ons downloaded.  As the above poster stated, those who care can and will figure out how to disable it.  Although frankly, since there's no Flash for Lynx, I'm surprised they even care at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love made-up , exaggerated statistics.Wow , if you feel that strongly about made up statistics , you must really blow a load when you see real statistics [ adobe.com ] then .
And before you shoot the messenger ( Adobe ) as the source for information about their own products , note that Shockwave is listed at 52 \ % .Look , I know there are people who do n't install Flash -- both of them are quite vocal here on Slashdot -- but for everyone else it 's one of the first Add-Ons downloaded .
As the above poster stated , those who care can and will figure out how to disable it .
Although frankly , since there 's no Flash for Lynx , I 'm surprised they even care at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love made-up, exaggerated statistics.Wow, if you feel that strongly about made up statistics, you must really blow a load when you see real statistics [adobe.com] then.
And before you shoot the messenger (Adobe) as the source for information about their own products, note that Shockwave is listed at 52\%.Look, I know there are people who don't install Flash -- both of them are quite vocal here on Slashdot -- but for everyone else it's one of the first Add-Ons downloaded.
As the above poster stated, those who care can and will figure out how to disable it.
Although frankly, since there's no Flash for Lynx, I'm surprised they even care at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678362</id>
	<title>goddammit google!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269946800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>what part of <i>"don't be evil"</i> do you not understand?!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>what part of " do n't be evil " do you not understand ? ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what part of "don't be evil" do you not understand?!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678302</id>
	<title>Re:Silverlight?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269946620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Joke<br> <br>

Head</htmltext>
<tokenext>Joke Head</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Joke 

Head</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678730</id>
	<title>The true color of Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269948540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google tries to do one thing well, and do everything else on the cheap to draw attention to the only thing it does well. The result, it floods the world with numerous free yet stupid solutions. I call on the talented programmers not working on search to leave Google and starting doing something on its own merit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google tries to do one thing well , and do everything else on the cheap to draw attention to the only thing it does well .
The result , it floods the world with numerous free yet stupid solutions .
I call on the talented programmers not working on search to leave Google and starting doing something on its own merit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google tries to do one thing well, and do everything else on the cheap to draw attention to the only thing it does well.
The result, it floods the world with numerous free yet stupid solutions.
I call on the talented programmers not working on search to leave Google and starting doing something on its own merit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31682038</id>
	<title>Re:I'm ok with it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269964500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What about the computer savvy that have to fix the computers for the other 99\% of people stupid enough to install Flash?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about the computer savvy that have to fix the computers for the other 99 \ % of people stupid enough to install Flash ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about the computer savvy that have to fix the computers for the other 99\% of people stupid enough to install Flash?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678352</id>
	<title>Stupid Media Spin To This Story</title>
	<author>WiseWeasel</author>
	<datestamp>1269946800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So here's the story; Google <a href="http://blog.chromium.org/2010/03/bringing-improved-support-for-adobe.html" title="chromium.org">releases a new Chromium build</a> [chromium.org] that does three things:<br>1) A copy of the Flash plugin gets installed when Chrome/Chromium is installed, regardless of whether you already have it.<br>2) Chrome/Chromium now runs its copy of the Flash plugin in a sandbox, so that malicious Flash content can't access your computer.<br>3) Chrome/Chromium will now auto-scan for updates to the Flash plugin and install them in an automated fashion upon launch.</p><p>So basically, the real story is that this is a security update for Chromium, mitigating many of the vulnerabilities with the current setup of having the Flash runtime be run with user privileges from a central location for all browsers, and managed by no one at all.</p><p>There's also an announcement of a partnership between Google, Mozilla and Adobe to work on a new API for browser plugins, presumably involving browsers taking a more active role in managing their plugins, and allowing certain features like sandboxing and implementation of some type of common interface standards.</p><p>What we get instead is reporting of Google thwarting Apple's putative war on Flash, somehow breathing new life into the beleaguered standard, where Apple would surely do the opposite of whatever Google is doing. I'd not be surprised to see Safari adopt some very similar features in the near future, as they all make pretty good sense, at least for their desktop browser. If only these "journalists" knew enough about what they were reporting to recognize their need to eat crow at that point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So here 's the story ; Google releases a new Chromium build [ chromium.org ] that does three things : 1 ) A copy of the Flash plugin gets installed when Chrome/Chromium is installed , regardless of whether you already have it.2 ) Chrome/Chromium now runs its copy of the Flash plugin in a sandbox , so that malicious Flash content ca n't access your computer.3 ) Chrome/Chromium will now auto-scan for updates to the Flash plugin and install them in an automated fashion upon launch.So basically , the real story is that this is a security update for Chromium , mitigating many of the vulnerabilities with the current setup of having the Flash runtime be run with user privileges from a central location for all browsers , and managed by no one at all.There 's also an announcement of a partnership between Google , Mozilla and Adobe to work on a new API for browser plugins , presumably involving browsers taking a more active role in managing their plugins , and allowing certain features like sandboxing and implementation of some type of common interface standards.What we get instead is reporting of Google thwarting Apple 's putative war on Flash , somehow breathing new life into the beleaguered standard , where Apple would surely do the opposite of whatever Google is doing .
I 'd not be surprised to see Safari adopt some very similar features in the near future , as they all make pretty good sense , at least for their desktop browser .
If only these " journalists " knew enough about what they were reporting to recognize their need to eat crow at that point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So here's the story; Google releases a new Chromium build [chromium.org] that does three things:1) A copy of the Flash plugin gets installed when Chrome/Chromium is installed, regardless of whether you already have it.2) Chrome/Chromium now runs its copy of the Flash plugin in a sandbox, so that malicious Flash content can't access your computer.3) Chrome/Chromium will now auto-scan for updates to the Flash plugin and install them in an automated fashion upon launch.So basically, the real story is that this is a security update for Chromium, mitigating many of the vulnerabilities with the current setup of having the Flash runtime be run with user privileges from a central location for all browsers, and managed by no one at all.There's also an announcement of a partnership between Google, Mozilla and Adobe to work on a new API for browser plugins, presumably involving browsers taking a more active role in managing their plugins, and allowing certain features like sandboxing and implementation of some type of common interface standards.What we get instead is reporting of Google thwarting Apple's putative war on Flash, somehow breathing new life into the beleaguered standard, where Apple would surely do the opposite of whatever Google is doing.
I'd not be surprised to see Safari adopt some very similar features in the near future, as they all make pretty good sense, at least for their desktop browser.
If only these "journalists" knew enough about what they were reporting to recognize their need to eat crow at that point.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31679040</id>
	<title>Re:CmdrTaco is en fuego</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269949920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is CmdrTaco giddy with anticipation of some giant prank for Thursday?  If he on the gigglejuice?  Is he just happy spring is here?</p></div><p>I want gigglejuice...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is CmdrTaco giddy with anticipation of some giant prank for Thursday ?
If he on the gigglejuice ?
Is he just happy spring is here ? I want gigglejuice.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is CmdrTaco giddy with anticipation of some giant prank for Thursday?
If he on the gigglejuice?
Is he just happy spring is here?I want gigglejuice...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31679318</id>
	<title>Re:hopefully..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269951480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unresponsive? I didn't notice that at first. Nor do I notice download stalling -- maybe it's your connection. But I did install <a href="https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gofhjkjmkpinhpoiabjplobcaignabnl" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">FlashBlock</a> [google.com] fairly quickly, so maybe I missed the Flash issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unresponsive ?
I did n't notice that at first .
Nor do I notice download stalling -- maybe it 's your connection .
But I did install FlashBlock [ google.com ] fairly quickly , so maybe I missed the Flash issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unresponsive?
I didn't notice that at first.
Nor do I notice download stalling -- maybe it's your connection.
But I did install FlashBlock [google.com] fairly quickly, so maybe I missed the Flash issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678728</id>
	<title>Slap in Apple's Face?</title>
	<author>bynary</author>
	<datestamp>1269948540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder if this is a slighting technique on Google's part.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if this is a slighting technique on Google 's part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if this is a slighting technique on Google's part.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678188</id>
	<title>Is it removable?</title>
	<author>decipher\_saint</author>
	<datestamp>1269946200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is there a way to remove the pre-installed version of Flash from Chrome?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there a way to remove the pre-installed version of Flash from Chrome ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there a way to remove the pre-installed version of Flash from Chrome?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31679354</id>
	<title>Google should be financing an OSS alternative</title>
	<author>cheesybagel</author>
	<datestamp>1269951600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can understand that users need Flash functionality, however I kind of wonder how problematic this will be for Google. Google may want to port their browser to other platforms which Flash may not support, say for Android, or whatever. Imagine someone wants to use ChromeOS on MIPS, or some yet to develop processor architecture. Then there are all the security issues typical of a closed source product. Google will be publicly distributing code which they do not control, can debug, patch or maintain. People should be funding Gnash or whatever. Perhaps even work some more on one of those fancy Actionscript on Javascript interpreters.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can understand that users need Flash functionality , however I kind of wonder how problematic this will be for Google .
Google may want to port their browser to other platforms which Flash may not support , say for Android , or whatever .
Imagine someone wants to use ChromeOS on MIPS , or some yet to develop processor architecture .
Then there are all the security issues typical of a closed source product .
Google will be publicly distributing code which they do not control , can debug , patch or maintain .
People should be funding Gnash or whatever .
Perhaps even work some more on one of those fancy Actionscript on Javascript interpreters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can understand that users need Flash functionality, however I kind of wonder how problematic this will be for Google.
Google may want to port their browser to other platforms which Flash may not support, say for Android, or whatever.
Imagine someone wants to use ChromeOS on MIPS, or some yet to develop processor architecture.
Then there are all the security issues typical of a closed source product.
Google will be publicly distributing code which they do not control, can debug, patch or maintain.
People should be funding Gnash or whatever.
Perhaps even work some more on one of those fancy Actionscript on Javascript interpreters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678580</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid Media Spin To This Story</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1269947700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know if it is a non story.  It means Chrome is becoming a real browser.  I suppose we now have Flash on the mac.
<p>
Now, if chrome does not have a flash blocker it will not be my browser.  On the mac we have a browser with flash blocking built in.
</p><p>
I have been looking at chrome for one set of computers I run.  The fact that it did not run reliably, i.e. Flash and Java were a big issue, meant that I can not move away from IE.
</p><p>
There are some things that Flash is good for.  If Google had not made a big deal about Flash, then it may have been a situation in which Flash would have been a further push to move away from flash.  OTOH, google does seem to like those little flash bugs that I see popping up all over my browser window.  If I click them nothing happens, so I suppose they are the new incarnation of the 1X1 pixel picture bug.  In that case, we suppose that google cannot live without Flash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know if it is a non story .
It means Chrome is becoming a real browser .
I suppose we now have Flash on the mac .
Now , if chrome does not have a flash blocker it will not be my browser .
On the mac we have a browser with flash blocking built in .
I have been looking at chrome for one set of computers I run .
The fact that it did not run reliably , i.e .
Flash and Java were a big issue , meant that I can not move away from IE .
There are some things that Flash is good for .
If Google had not made a big deal about Flash , then it may have been a situation in which Flash would have been a further push to move away from flash .
OTOH , google does seem to like those little flash bugs that I see popping up all over my browser window .
If I click them nothing happens , so I suppose they are the new incarnation of the 1X1 pixel picture bug .
In that case , we suppose that google can not live without Flash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know if it is a non story.
It means Chrome is becoming a real browser.
I suppose we now have Flash on the mac.
Now, if chrome does not have a flash blocker it will not be my browser.
On the mac we have a browser with flash blocking built in.
I have been looking at chrome for one set of computers I run.
The fact that it did not run reliably, i.e.
Flash and Java were a big issue, meant that I can not move away from IE.
There are some things that Flash is good for.
If Google had not made a big deal about Flash, then it may have been a situation in which Flash would have been a further push to move away from flash.
OTOH, google does seem to like those little flash bugs that I see popping up all over my browser window.
If I click them nothing happens, so I suppose they are the new incarnation of the 1X1 pixel picture bug.
In that case, we suppose that google cannot live without Flash.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31702564</id>
	<title>Re:The problem is that it promotes the use of Flas</title>
	<author>badkarmadayaccount</author>
	<datestamp>1270113480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why not run AS3 parallel to JS? They can use the same VM. Maybe create descent DOM replacement and export it to the VM.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not run AS3 parallel to JS ?
They can use the same VM .
Maybe create descent DOM replacement and export it to the VM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not run AS3 parallel to JS?
They can use the same VM.
Maybe create descent DOM replacement and export it to the VM.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31684330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31679110</id>
	<title>Re:Is it removable?</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1269950220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Download Chromium, the pure open source version.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Download Chromium , the pure open source version .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Download Chromium, the pure open source version.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31681800</id>
	<title>Re:I'm ok with it.</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1269963000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Just how many MySpace users do you think exist for each slashdot user?</p></div></blockquote><p>I dunno.  How many of them *do* we each get, anyhow?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just how many MySpace users do you think exist for each slashdot user ? I dunno .
How many of them * do * we each get , anyhow ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just how many MySpace users do you think exist for each slashdot user?I dunno.
How many of them *do* we each get, anyhow?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31679460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31682278</id>
	<title>Re:hopefully..</title>
	<author>MikeFM</author>
	<datestamp>1269965940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Chrome sucks when you have 40 or 50 tabs open. Uses craploads of resources. Still doesn't seem to let me treat different tabs as different sessions (logged into two different GMail accounts at once).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Chrome sucks when you have 40 or 50 tabs open .
Uses craploads of resources .
Still does n't seem to let me treat different tabs as different sessions ( logged into two different GMail accounts at once ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chrome sucks when you have 40 or 50 tabs open.
Uses craploads of resources.
Still doesn't seem to let me treat different tabs as different sessions (logged into two different GMail accounts at once).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31682668</id>
	<title>Re:The problem is that it promotes the use of Flas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269968640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The main problem is that historically, Flash developers have been extremely bad at implementing <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fault-tolerant\_system" title="wikipedia.org">graceful degradation</a> [wikipedia.org], or even <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt\_attribute" title="wikipedia.org">content description</a> [wikipedia.org] targetted specifically at users who do not have the capabilities (physical or technical) to comply with a specific technology.<br> <br>

Javascript, over the years, has become <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtrusive\_JavaScript" title="wikipedia.org">extremely good at graceful degradation</a> [wikipedia.org]. Toolkits such as JQuery really stress the fact that Javascript should be used to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive\_enhancement" title="wikipedia.org">augment a user's experience</a> [wikipedia.org], without making support for said toolkit or language a requirement.<br> <br>

A common example of this are menus which show will display a submenu when hovered, but still work as a proper HTML link if clicked (intentionally or because the user's browser is unable to display the submenu). I have seen quite a few websites where the navigation relied extensively on Flash, and there was <em>no way</em> to browse anything else than the index if Flash was unavailable.<br> <br>

I think everyone realises that Flash is a dying technology. Its proprietary nature, lack of openness, CPU-hungry cycles and history of poor design have made it the black sheep of webdesign; the only reason it still is popular is because of YouTube. As a few in here have said, Joe Bloggs doesn't care about what technology powers the fancy and shiny flashing buttons on the interwebs. So, whether it's Flash or something else, they'll adopt anything as long as it just works. We just need to wait for websites to stop providing it.<br> <br>

Unless we're talking about very fancy vector drawing, there rarely is anything about content disposition in Flash that provides an advantage over HTML/Javascript. A few examples of this are <a href="http://livepipe.net/" title="livepipe.net">LivePipe</a> [livepipe.net] and <a href="http://flowplayer.org/tools/demos/index.html" title="flowplayer.org">JQuery Tools</a> [flowplayer.org]. Most of these are available through Content Delivery Networks, which drastically reduces load times.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The main problem is that historically , Flash developers have been extremely bad at implementing graceful degradation [ wikipedia.org ] , or even content description [ wikipedia.org ] targetted specifically at users who do not have the capabilities ( physical or technical ) to comply with a specific technology .
Javascript , over the years , has become extremely good at graceful degradation [ wikipedia.org ] .
Toolkits such as JQuery really stress the fact that Javascript should be used to augment a user 's experience [ wikipedia.org ] , without making support for said toolkit or language a requirement .
A common example of this are menus which show will display a submenu when hovered , but still work as a proper HTML link if clicked ( intentionally or because the user 's browser is unable to display the submenu ) .
I have seen quite a few websites where the navigation relied extensively on Flash , and there was no way to browse anything else than the index if Flash was unavailable .
I think everyone realises that Flash is a dying technology .
Its proprietary nature , lack of openness , CPU-hungry cycles and history of poor design have made it the black sheep of webdesign ; the only reason it still is popular is because of YouTube .
As a few in here have said , Joe Bloggs does n't care about what technology powers the fancy and shiny flashing buttons on the interwebs .
So , whether it 's Flash or something else , they 'll adopt anything as long as it just works .
We just need to wait for websites to stop providing it .
Unless we 're talking about very fancy vector drawing , there rarely is anything about content disposition in Flash that provides an advantage over HTML/Javascript .
A few examples of this are LivePipe [ livepipe.net ] and JQuery Tools [ flowplayer.org ] .
Most of these are available through Content Delivery Networks , which drastically reduces load times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main problem is that historically, Flash developers have been extremely bad at implementing graceful degradation [wikipedia.org], or even content description [wikipedia.org] targetted specifically at users who do not have the capabilities (physical or technical) to comply with a specific technology.
Javascript, over the years, has become extremely good at graceful degradation [wikipedia.org].
Toolkits such as JQuery really stress the fact that Javascript should be used to augment a user's experience [wikipedia.org], without making support for said toolkit or language a requirement.
A common example of this are menus which show will display a submenu when hovered, but still work as a proper HTML link if clicked (intentionally or because the user's browser is unable to display the submenu).
I have seen quite a few websites where the navigation relied extensively on Flash, and there was no way to browse anything else than the index if Flash was unavailable.
I think everyone realises that Flash is a dying technology.
Its proprietary nature, lack of openness, CPU-hungry cycles and history of poor design have made it the black sheep of webdesign; the only reason it still is popular is because of YouTube.
As a few in here have said, Joe Bloggs doesn't care about what technology powers the fancy and shiny flashing buttons on the interwebs.
So, whether it's Flash or something else, they'll adopt anything as long as it just works.
We just need to wait for websites to stop providing it.
Unless we're talking about very fancy vector drawing, there rarely is anything about content disposition in Flash that provides an advantage over HTML/Javascript.
A few examples of this are LivePipe [livepipe.net] and JQuery Tools [flowplayer.org].
Most of these are available through Content Delivery Networks, which drastically reduces load times.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31679238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31679460</id>
	<title>Re:I'm ok with it.</title>
	<author>spazdor</author>
	<datestamp>1269951900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's definitely made-up, but I am not at all convinced it's an exaggeration. Flash is damn-near ubiquitous for any web user who isn't an engineer. Just how many MySpace users do you think exist for each slashdot user?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's definitely made-up , but I am not at all convinced it 's an exaggeration .
Flash is damn-near ubiquitous for any web user who is n't an engineer .
Just how many MySpace users do you think exist for each slashdot user ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's definitely made-up, but I am not at all convinced it's an exaggeration.
Flash is damn-near ubiquitous for any web user who isn't an engineer.
Just how many MySpace users do you think exist for each slashdot user?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31682512</id>
	<title>Re:I'm ok with it.</title>
	<author>martin-boundary</author>
	<datestamp>1269967320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>for the rest, it's a service to have it included.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
It's not much of a service, though. You can't reuse the images it contains, and you can't view source.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>for the rest , it 's a service to have it included .
It 's not much of a service , though .
You ca n't reuse the images it contains , and you ca n't view source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for the rest, it's a service to have it included.
It's not much of a service, though.
You can't reuse the images it contains, and you can't view source.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678922</id>
	<title>Sandbox</title>
	<author>MtHuurne</author>
	<datestamp>1269949320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>
With Adobe's help, we plan to further protect users by extending Chrome's &ldquo;sandbox&rdquo; to web pages with Flash content.</p></div><p>That means they haven't sandboxed it yet. But it is good to know that they are taking steps to sandbox it in the future.</p><p>Currently I am using Konqueror's whitelist feature to only allow specific sites to use plug-ins. In addition to reducing the risk of Flash being exploited, it avoids a lot of annoying animated ads, without disabling ads altogether and denying sites their revenue stream.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : With Adobe 's help , we plan to further protect users by extending Chrome 's    sandbox    to web pages with Flash content.That means they have n't sandboxed it yet .
But it is good to know that they are taking steps to sandbox it in the future.Currently I am using Konqueror 's whitelist feature to only allow specific sites to use plug-ins .
In addition to reducing the risk of Flash being exploited , it avoids a lot of annoying animated ads , without disabling ads altogether and denying sites their revenue stream .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:
With Adobe's help, we plan to further protect users by extending Chrome's “sandbox” to web pages with Flash content.That means they haven't sandboxed it yet.
But it is good to know that they are taking steps to sandbox it in the future.Currently I am using Konqueror's whitelist feature to only allow specific sites to use plug-ins.
In addition to reducing the risk of Flash being exploited, it avoids a lot of annoying animated ads, without disabling ads altogether and denying sites their revenue stream.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678800</id>
	<title>The sound of blood vessels bursting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269948840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Flash haters aneuryze!

</p><p>Just how not evil is this?

</p><p>Similar to my verbing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Flash haters aneuryze !
Just how not evil is this ?
Similar to my verbing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flash haters aneuryze!
Just how not evil is this?
Similar to my verbing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678636</id>
	<title>Re:I'm ok with it.</title>
	<author>WrongSizeGlass</author>
	<datestamp>1269948060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apple includes Flash in OS X Safari updates. I always have to remove it after updating Safari (last one was the upgrade to 4.0.5). I had to remove it again last night after applying the 10.6.3 update. <br> <br>I don't know if they include it in updates to Safari for Windows, but I know I'm sick of them including it in the OS X versions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple includes Flash in OS X Safari updates .
I always have to remove it after updating Safari ( last one was the upgrade to 4.0.5 ) .
I had to remove it again last night after applying the 10.6.3 update .
I do n't know if they include it in updates to Safari for Windows , but I know I 'm sick of them including it in the OS X versions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple includes Flash in OS X Safari updates.
I always have to remove it after updating Safari (last one was the upgrade to 4.0.5).
I had to remove it again last night after applying the 10.6.3 update.
I don't know if they include it in updates to Safari for Windows, but I know I'm sick of them including it in the OS X versions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31679316</id>
	<title>But for what reason?</title>
	<author>rxan</author>
	<datestamp>1269951480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see this as a bad thing. But honestly, why is Google doing this? I mean it takes less than 30 seconds to download, install Flash, and reboot the browser after initial Chrome install.</p><p>I personally think it may be a response to Apple not allowing Flash on the iPad and iPhone. Google has stakes in Flash, such as their charts on Google Finance. Google also may have done this in response to Apple's <a href="http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/01/apple-acquires-its-own-mobile-ad-firm-to-one-up-google.ars" title="arstechnica.com" rel="nofollow">new plans for advertising</a> [arstechnica.com]. And lets not forget that much of advertising on the web is Flash content. If Apple were able to make Flash obsolete and boost up its advertising strengths in the process, Google may loose one of its huge cash cows. In the end, Google doesn't want Apple to have complete control of Internet technologies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see this as a bad thing .
But honestly , why is Google doing this ?
I mean it takes less than 30 seconds to download , install Flash , and reboot the browser after initial Chrome install.I personally think it may be a response to Apple not allowing Flash on the iPad and iPhone .
Google has stakes in Flash , such as their charts on Google Finance .
Google also may have done this in response to Apple 's new plans for advertising [ arstechnica.com ] .
And lets not forget that much of advertising on the web is Flash content .
If Apple were able to make Flash obsolete and boost up its advertising strengths in the process , Google may loose one of its huge cash cows .
In the end , Google does n't want Apple to have complete control of Internet technologies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see this as a bad thing.
But honestly, why is Google doing this?
I mean it takes less than 30 seconds to download, install Flash, and reboot the browser after initial Chrome install.I personally think it may be a response to Apple not allowing Flash on the iPad and iPhone.
Google has stakes in Flash, such as their charts on Google Finance.
Google also may have done this in response to Apple's new plans for advertising [arstechnica.com].
And lets not forget that much of advertising on the web is Flash content.
If Apple were able to make Flash obsolete and boost up its advertising strengths in the process, Google may loose one of its huge cash cows.
In the end, Google doesn't want Apple to have complete control of Internet technologies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31680184</id>
	<title>Re:hopefully..</title>
	<author>LifesABeach</author>
	<datestamp>1269955080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just a thought; It would be kind of nice if GO could be handled like an applet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just a thought ; It would be kind of nice if GO could be handled like an applet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just a thought; It would be kind of nice if GO could be handled like an applet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31679022</id>
	<title>Re:The problem is that it promotes the use of Flas</title>
	<author>Toonol</author>
	<datestamp>1269949800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I kind of agree; flash, java applets, silverlight, can be real nuisances, and it's not really their fault; it's due to a flawed browser paradigm.  The client (the web-browser) was designed poorly to handle scripting back in the 90's, and it's been constant headaches ever since.  The way the client was designed is innately flawed.<br> <br>

I don't think switching to Python would make anything better.  Actionscript, which is basically just modern Javascript, is a decent language... its only real problem is how it's integrated into the browser.  If Python had been used in its place, all the cool kids would despise Python.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I kind of agree ; flash , java applets , silverlight , can be real nuisances , and it 's not really their fault ; it 's due to a flawed browser paradigm .
The client ( the web-browser ) was designed poorly to handle scripting back in the 90 's , and it 's been constant headaches ever since .
The way the client was designed is innately flawed .
I do n't think switching to Python would make anything better .
Actionscript , which is basically just modern Javascript , is a decent language... its only real problem is how it 's integrated into the browser .
If Python had been used in its place , all the cool kids would despise Python .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I kind of agree; flash, java applets, silverlight, can be real nuisances, and it's not really their fault; it's due to a flawed browser paradigm.
The client (the web-browser) was designed poorly to handle scripting back in the 90's, and it's been constant headaches ever since.
The way the client was designed is innately flawed.
I don't think switching to Python would make anything better.
Actionscript, which is basically just modern Javascript, is a decent language... its only real problem is how it's integrated into the browser.
If Python had been used in its place, all the cool kids would despise Python.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31681662</id>
	<title>Re:goddammit google!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269962340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apparently you don't understand the "don't be retarded" slogan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently you do n't understand the " do n't be retarded " slogan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently you don't understand the "don't be retarded" slogan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31684114</id>
	<title>Re:Processes per page?</title>
	<author>Jugalator</author>
	<datestamp>1270068420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, maybe this is a reason for Chrome's performance with Flash. I always considered that possibility. And it would definitely be worth it for me. That, and the increased likelihood I'm always running the latest and most security-fixed version of Flash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , maybe this is a reason for Chrome 's performance with Flash .
I always considered that possibility .
And it would definitely be worth it for me .
That , and the increased likelihood I 'm always running the latest and most security-fixed version of Flash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, maybe this is a reason for Chrome's performance with Flash.
I always considered that possibility.
And it would definitely be worth it for me.
That, and the increased likelihood I'm always running the latest and most security-fixed version of Flash.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678476</id>
	<title>Re:Silverlight?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269947280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Netflix.<br> <br>

I have no particular desire to use Silverlight, but it's required for instant netflix streaming.  And, honestly, it seems to handle it better than Flash.  That's the only place I've ever needed it, but it's a pretty big reason to get it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Netflix .
I have no particular desire to use Silverlight , but it 's required for instant netflix streaming .
And , honestly , it seems to handle it better than Flash .
That 's the only place I 've ever needed it , but it 's a pretty big reason to get it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Netflix.
I have no particular desire to use Silverlight, but it's required for instant netflix streaming.
And, honestly, it seems to handle it better than Flash.
That's the only place I've ever needed it, but it's a pretty big reason to get it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31679584</id>
	<title>You guys are a couple of days early...</title>
	<author>Low Ranked Craig</author>
	<datestamp>1269952380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>April fools day is April 1st, not March 30th.</htmltext>
<tokenext>April fools day is April 1st , not March 30th .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>April fools day is April 1st, not March 30th.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678634</id>
	<title>Re:Silverlight?</title>
	<author>Jenming</author>
	<datestamp>1269948000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Silverlights video streaming is rather better than flash. I was impressed with both the olympic and march madness (HQ) streaming. You can hate on microsoft if you want, but it doesn't make silverlight any worse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Silverlights video streaming is rather better than flash .
I was impressed with both the olympic and march madness ( HQ ) streaming .
You can hate on microsoft if you want , but it does n't make silverlight any worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Silverlights video streaming is rather better than flash.
I was impressed with both the olympic and march madness (HQ) streaming.
You can hate on microsoft if you want, but it doesn't make silverlight any worse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31683508</id>
	<title>Re:Silverlight?</title>
	<author>aqk</author>
	<datestamp>1269976200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Who cares about silverlight?  I don't install it on any browser I use, and so shouldn't anyone else.</p></div><p>
Yep!  I use Netscape 4.73 also!  Best there ever was!  <br>
But I just DLed Mosaic.  Gonna give it a try, I heard it's pretty good!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares about silverlight ?
I do n't install it on any browser I use , and so should n't anyone else .
Yep ! I use Netscape 4.73 also !
Best there ever was !
But I just DLed Mosaic .
Gon na give it a try , I heard it 's pretty good !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares about silverlight?
I don't install it on any browser I use, and so shouldn't anyone else.
Yep!  I use Netscape 4.73 also!
Best there ever was!
But I just DLed Mosaic.
Gonna give it a try, I heard it's pretty good!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678724</id>
	<title>Re:I'm ok with it.</title>
	<author>drolli</author>
	<datestamp>1269948480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And having it in the Browser means a more controlled update path, for the unlucky of us whoc work under OS without a decent package manager.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And having it in the Browser means a more controlled update path , for the unlucky of us whoc work under OS without a decent package manager .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And having it in the Browser means a more controlled update path, for the unlucky of us whoc work under OS without a decent package manager.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678308</id>
	<title>nooo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269946620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i did not install it on purpose, guess thats more annoying ads for me</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i did not install it on purpose , guess thats more annoying ads for me</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i did not install it on purpose, guess thats more annoying ads for me</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678222</id>
	<title>Silverlight?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269946320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who cares about silverlight?  I don't install it on any browser I use, and so shouldn't anyone else.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares about silverlight ?
I do n't install it on any browser I use , and so should n't anyone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares about silverlight?
I don't install it on any browser I use, and so shouldn't anyone else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678516</id>
	<title>Processes per page?</title>
	<author>wiredlogic</author>
	<datestamp>1269947460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Presumably this integration will allow multiple flash apps on a page all running in a single flash process. This could have dramatic performance benefits in page loads and memory utilization.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Presumably this integration will allow multiple flash apps on a page all running in a single flash process .
This could have dramatic performance benefits in page loads and memory utilization .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Presumably this integration will allow multiple flash apps on a page all running in a single flash process.
This could have dramatic performance benefits in page loads and memory utilization.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31684390</id>
	<title>Re:Is it removable?</title>
	<author>Mhtsos</author>
	<datestamp>1270027800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm hoping flashblock extension will still work after the integration.. am I hoping for too much?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm hoping flashblock extension will still work after the integration.. am I hoping for too much ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm hoping flashblock extension will still work after the integration.. am I hoping for too much?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31679548</id>
	<title>Re:Chrome users like flash more than others it see</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269952260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Depending on how you look at it, this is either a sign chrome users don't need additional help getting flash installed or that google is simply catering to their users who have a special affinity for the flash plugin - you decide.</p></div><p>I go with, "making the browsing experience as painless as possible." Google loves to do this with everything, including one-click installing video/voicechat plugins for GMail.</p><p>Initially Google did not support Flash -- you had to manually install the Flash executable and hope that Chrome picked it up. So I'd also say, the Chrome users are more technically apt than others.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Depending on how you look at it , this is either a sign chrome users do n't need additional help getting flash installed or that google is simply catering to their users who have a special affinity for the flash plugin - you decide.I go with , " making the browsing experience as painless as possible .
" Google loves to do this with everything , including one-click installing video/voicechat plugins for GMail.Initially Google did not support Flash -- you had to manually install the Flash executable and hope that Chrome picked it up .
So I 'd also say , the Chrome users are more technically apt than others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depending on how you look at it, this is either a sign chrome users don't need additional help getting flash installed or that google is simply catering to their users who have a special affinity for the flash plugin - you decide.I go with, "making the browsing experience as painless as possible.
" Google loves to do this with everything, including one-click installing video/voicechat plugins for GMail.Initially Google did not support Flash -- you had to manually install the Flash executable and hope that Chrome picked it up.
So I'd also say, the Chrome users are more technically apt than others.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678190</id>
	<title>GREAT!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269946200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>lol Exactly what we wanted.<br>More flash...</p><p>Bring back Java Applets while you are at it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>lol Exactly what we wanted.More flash...Bring back Java Applets while you are at it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lol Exactly what we wanted.More flash...Bring back Java Applets while you are at it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31679238</id>
	<title>Re:The problem is that it promotes the use of Flas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269951060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problems with client-side scripting have nothing to do with the language.  Embedding another scripting language like Python would be unnecessarily confusing and would just add complexity where none is needed.  What Flash provides that JavaScript does not are:</p><ul>
<li>Possibly more powerful/flexible layout of text and images with greater control than the HTML DOM provides (but I'm not certain of this).</li><li>Animation, transition, and transform features that are compatible with the most popular browser (Internet Explorer).</li><li>A truckload of design tools for building up the content visually with a minimum of programming required.</li></ul><p>Notice that none of these have anything to do with deficiencies in the programming language.  Indeed, the language used in Flash, ActionScript, is based on ECMAScript, which is the same fundamental foundation as JavaScript.  So for all practical purposes, from a language feature perspective, there is already close parity.  I won't go so far as to say they are the same language, but... they're so close that all you have to do is squint a little.</p><p>Adding Python to a browser is just a recipe for magnifying the existing compatibility problems by splintering development into multiple camps.  That's precisely the way to guarantee that Flash <b>never</b> goes away.  Now, instead of focusing on tools for one language, you have to focus tools on two---one for Python in FireFox and maybe a couple of other browsers, and one to deal with JavaScript for all the browsers that won't ever support something like that (IE).  To describe this as a terrible idea is insulting to terrible ideas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problems with client-side scripting have nothing to do with the language .
Embedding another scripting language like Python would be unnecessarily confusing and would just add complexity where none is needed .
What Flash provides that JavaScript does not are : Possibly more powerful/flexible layout of text and images with greater control than the HTML DOM provides ( but I 'm not certain of this ) .Animation , transition , and transform features that are compatible with the most popular browser ( Internet Explorer ) .A truckload of design tools for building up the content visually with a minimum of programming required.Notice that none of these have anything to do with deficiencies in the programming language .
Indeed , the language used in Flash , ActionScript , is based on ECMAScript , which is the same fundamental foundation as JavaScript .
So for all practical purposes , from a language feature perspective , there is already close parity .
I wo n't go so far as to say they are the same language , but... they 're so close that all you have to do is squint a little.Adding Python to a browser is just a recipe for magnifying the existing compatibility problems by splintering development into multiple camps .
That 's precisely the way to guarantee that Flash never goes away .
Now , instead of focusing on tools for one language , you have to focus tools on two---one for Python in FireFox and maybe a couple of other browsers , and one to deal with JavaScript for all the browsers that wo n't ever support something like that ( IE ) .
To describe this as a terrible idea is insulting to terrible ideas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problems with client-side scripting have nothing to do with the language.
Embedding another scripting language like Python would be unnecessarily confusing and would just add complexity where none is needed.
What Flash provides that JavaScript does not are:
Possibly more powerful/flexible layout of text and images with greater control than the HTML DOM provides (but I'm not certain of this).Animation, transition, and transform features that are compatible with the most popular browser (Internet Explorer).A truckload of design tools for building up the content visually with a minimum of programming required.Notice that none of these have anything to do with deficiencies in the programming language.
Indeed, the language used in Flash, ActionScript, is based on ECMAScript, which is the same fundamental foundation as JavaScript.
So for all practical purposes, from a language feature perspective, there is already close parity.
I won't go so far as to say they are the same language, but... they're so close that all you have to do is squint a little.Adding Python to a browser is just a recipe for magnifying the existing compatibility problems by splintering development into multiple camps.
That's precisely the way to guarantee that Flash never goes away.
Now, instead of focusing on tools for one language, you have to focus tools on two---one for Python in FireFox and maybe a couple of other browsers, and one to deal with JavaScript for all the browsers that won't ever support something like that (IE).
To describe this as a terrible idea is insulting to terrible ideas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678296</id>
	<title>Ah Ha!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269946620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"What are we going to do tonight, Brain?"</p><p>"Same thing we every night, Flashy.  Try and take over the world!"</p><p>---</p><p>"Are you pondering what I'm pondering, Flashy?"</p><p>"I think so.  But how do you sneak tracking cookies past Porn Mode on Firefox?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" What are we going to do tonight , Brain ?
" " Same thing we every night , Flashy .
Try and take over the world !
" --- " Are you pondering what I 'm pondering , Flashy ?
" " I think so .
But how do you sneak tracking cookies past Porn Mode on Firefox ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"What are we going to do tonight, Brain?
""Same thing we every night, Flashy.
Try and take over the world!
"---"Are you pondering what I'm pondering, Flashy?
""I think so.
But how do you sneak tracking cookies past Porn Mode on Firefox?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678656</id>
	<title>Pre-emptive move against HTML5?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269948180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If HTML5 is a potential competitor to Adobe Flash, and it will be widely supported out of the box in browsers, it would make sense for Adobe to move towards inclusion in browsers. This is an [anti-]competitive move to ensure continued use of flash.
<br> <br>
Silverlight may follow suit for this reason also. However for this reason, I imagine Internet Explorer would be the last browser to have flash built-in.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If HTML5 is a potential competitor to Adobe Flash , and it will be widely supported out of the box in browsers , it would make sense for Adobe to move towards inclusion in browsers .
This is an [ anti- ] competitive move to ensure continued use of flash .
Silverlight may follow suit for this reason also .
However for this reason , I imagine Internet Explorer would be the last browser to have flash built-in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If HTML5 is a potential competitor to Adobe Flash, and it will be widely supported out of the box in browsers, it would make sense for Adobe to move towards inclusion in browsers.
This is an [anti-]competitive move to ensure continued use of flash.
Silverlight may follow suit for this reason also.
However for this reason, I imagine Internet Explorer would be the last browser to have flash built-in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678684</id>
	<title>Re:I'm ok with it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269948360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The inclusion of Flash doesn't generate any issues that every other browser doesn't have.</p></div> </blockquote><p>At this point the most significant security hole in web browsing is Flash, so yes, it does add problems every other browser doesn't have.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The inclusion of Flash does n't generate any issues that every other browser does n't have .
At this point the most significant security hole in web browsing is Flash , so yes , it does add problems every other browser does n't have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The inclusion of Flash doesn't generate any issues that every other browser doesn't have.
At this point the most significant security hole in web browsing is Flash, so yes, it does add problems every other browser doesn't have.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678632</id>
	<title>Re:I'm ok with it.</title>
	<author>bynary</author>
	<datestamp>1269948000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Since 99\% of people end up installing Flash...</p></div><p>Yes, according to <a href="http://www.adobe.com/products/player\_census/flashplayer/version\_penetration.html" title="adobe.com">Adobe</a> [adobe.com].  Somehow methinks that number is a bit skewed in Adobe's favor.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since 99 \ % of people end up installing Flash...Yes , according to Adobe [ adobe.com ] .
Somehow methinks that number is a bit skewed in Adobe 's favor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since 99\% of people end up installing Flash...Yes, according to Adobe [adobe.com].
Somehow methinks that number is a bit skewed in Adobe's favor.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678218</id>
	<title>Silverlight?</title>
	<author>Lord Lode</author>
	<datestamp>1269946320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you really expect them to announce including Silverlight too? Why?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you really expect them to announce including Silverlight too ?
Why ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you really expect them to announce including Silverlight too?
Why?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31681426</id>
	<title>Re:CmdrTaco is en fuego</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1269960960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>CmdrTaco is probably the only bastion of sense that keeps me reading<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/....no doubt Thursday will end this forever, but until then...did you know Barack Obama was actually born in Michigan?</htmltext>
<tokenext>CmdrTaco is probably the only bastion of sense that keeps me reading /....no doubt Thursday will end this forever , but until then...did you know Barack Obama was actually born in Michigan ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CmdrTaco is probably the only bastion of sense that keeps me reading /....no doubt Thursday will end this forever, but until then...did you know Barack Obama was actually born in Michigan?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31679386</id>
	<title>If the headline was true</title>
	<author>HishamMuhammad</author>
	<datestamp>1269951660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...it would mean "Google Chrome Now Officially Not Free Software".</p><p>Fortunately, it isn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...it would mean " Google Chrome Now Officially Not Free Software " .Fortunately , it is n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...it would mean "Google Chrome Now Officially Not Free Software".Fortunately, it isn't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31682246</id>
	<title>Re:The problem is that it promotes the use of Flas</title>
	<author>perryizgr8</author>
	<datestamp>1269965820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i don't think java can be replaced completely by javascript. and java is quite open too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>i do n't think java can be replaced completely by javascript .
and java is quite open too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i don't think java can be replaced completely by javascript.
and java is quite open too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678562</id>
	<title>Let me get this straight...</title>
	<author>Dragoniz3r</author>
	<datestamp>1269947640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, you're actually suggesting that journalists:<br>
a) Are blithering idiots<br>
b) Like to breathe false drama and conflict into stories that really don't have any?<br> <br>
What a revolutionary idea!</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , you 're actually suggesting that journalists : a ) Are blithering idiots b ) Like to breathe false drama and conflict into stories that really do n't have any ?
What a revolutionary idea !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, you're actually suggesting that journalists:
a) Are blithering idiots
b) Like to breathe false drama and conflict into stories that really don't have any?
What a revolutionary idea!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678412</id>
	<title>WTF Google? Think of the little guy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269947040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't get me wrong, Google has done a lot to push good open web standards, but this decision is one to cater to the masses instead of leading them. Flash needs to die. I love the web, but I also love obscure BeOS based OSS operating systems- which while Chrome doesn't support, its marketshare certainly influences the web sites we ALL visit. If Google starts bundling Flash, then it becomes even more "required" than it already is.  I know I'm not alone here especially with the influx of new mobiles and mobile OS's that struggle with the same problems us alternative OS people do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't get me wrong , Google has done a lot to push good open web standards , but this decision is one to cater to the masses instead of leading them .
Flash needs to die .
I love the web , but I also love obscure BeOS based OSS operating systems- which while Chrome does n't support , its marketshare certainly influences the web sites we ALL visit .
If Google starts bundling Flash , then it becomes even more " required " than it already is .
I know I 'm not alone here especially with the influx of new mobiles and mobile OS 's that struggle with the same problems us alternative OS people do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't get me wrong, Google has done a lot to push good open web standards, but this decision is one to cater to the masses instead of leading them.
Flash needs to die.
I love the web, but I also love obscure BeOS based OSS operating systems- which while Chrome doesn't support, its marketshare certainly influences the web sites we ALL visit.
If Google starts bundling Flash, then it becomes even more "required" than it already is.
I know I'm not alone here especially with the influx of new mobiles and mobile OS's that struggle with the same problems us alternative OS people do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678440</id>
	<title>Re:Silverlight?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269947100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why not?  Why shouldn't I install Silverlight?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not ?
Why should n't I install Silverlight ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not?
Why shouldn't I install Silverlight?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31680090</id>
	<title>Re:Is it removable?</title>
	<author>pjbgravely</author>
	<datestamp>1269954720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>More importantly is it going to remove 64 bit Flash and replace it with the release 32 bit version on my next update?<br> <br>If so then moving back to Chromium is the only hope I think.</htmltext>
<tokenext>More importantly is it going to remove 64 bit Flash and replace it with the release 32 bit version on my next update ?
If so then moving back to Chromium is the only hope I think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More importantly is it going to remove 64 bit Flash and replace it with the release 32 bit version on my next update?
If so then moving back to Chromium is the only hope I think.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678276</id>
	<title>CmdrTaco is en fuego</title>
	<author>Red Flayer</author>
	<datestamp>1269946560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey, not that it has anything to do with anything, but Rob is ripping the one-liners attached to article summaries today.<br> <br>This article:<br> <i>I expect them to announce Silverlight Thursday. </i> <br> <br>The Novell/SCO article:<br> <i>No doubt this is the last we will ever hear of any of this. </i> <br> <br>The NASA/Toyota article:<br> <i>We're really in trouble when NASA has no choice but to call Bruce Willis. </i> <br> <br>The slow-people-down-with-obstacles-article: <br> <i>All of that is gonna work a lot better than my strategy of placing car-sized holes covered with twigs and branches randomly every half mile or so down the interstates.</i> <br> <br>Is CmdrTaco giddy with anticipation of some giant prank for Thursday?  If he on the gigglejuice?  Is he just happy spring is here?<br> <br>Who knows... but it's nice to see some light-hearted editorialization for a change.<br> <br>And, now, rightfully so, please mod this post into oblivion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , not that it has anything to do with anything , but Rob is ripping the one-liners attached to article summaries today .
This article : I expect them to announce Silverlight Thursday .
The Novell/SCO article : No doubt this is the last we will ever hear of any of this .
The NASA/Toyota article : We 're really in trouble when NASA has no choice but to call Bruce Willis .
The slow-people-down-with-obstacles-article : All of that is gon na work a lot better than my strategy of placing car-sized holes covered with twigs and branches randomly every half mile or so down the interstates .
Is CmdrTaco giddy with anticipation of some giant prank for Thursday ?
If he on the gigglejuice ?
Is he just happy spring is here ?
Who knows... but it 's nice to see some light-hearted editorialization for a change .
And , now , rightfully so , please mod this post into oblivion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, not that it has anything to do with anything, but Rob is ripping the one-liners attached to article summaries today.
This article: I expect them to announce Silverlight Thursday.
The Novell/SCO article: No doubt this is the last we will ever hear of any of this.
The NASA/Toyota article: We're really in trouble when NASA has no choice but to call Bruce Willis.
The slow-people-down-with-obstacles-article:  All of that is gonna work a lot better than my strategy of placing car-sized holes covered with twigs and branches randomly every half mile or so down the interstates.
Is CmdrTaco giddy with anticipation of some giant prank for Thursday?
If he on the gigglejuice?
Is he just happy spring is here?
Who knows... but it's nice to see some light-hearted editorialization for a change.
And, now, rightfully so, please mod this post into oblivion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31681284</id>
	<title>Silverlight</title>
	<author>CosaNostra Pizza Inc</author>
	<datestamp>1269960360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What about Silverlight for the Linux version of Chrome?  I don't see it happening.  A Silverlight plugin is available for Firefox through a Novell project called Moonlight Mono but, no one has ever gotten the plugin to work with Chrome.  Furthermore, Moonlight is always a few revisions behind the latest version of Silverlight.  Silverlight is necessary to watch certain internet radio broadcasts.  Also, Silverlight is needed for downloading Netflix movies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about Silverlight for the Linux version of Chrome ?
I do n't see it happening .
A Silverlight plugin is available for Firefox through a Novell project called Moonlight Mono but , no one has ever gotten the plugin to work with Chrome .
Furthermore , Moonlight is always a few revisions behind the latest version of Silverlight .
Silverlight is necessary to watch certain internet radio broadcasts .
Also , Silverlight is needed for downloading Netflix movies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about Silverlight for the Linux version of Chrome?
I don't see it happening.
A Silverlight plugin is available for Firefox through a Novell project called Moonlight Mono but, no one has ever gotten the plugin to work with Chrome.
Furthermore, Moonlight is always a few revisions behind the latest version of Silverlight.
Silverlight is necessary to watch certain internet radio broadcasts.
Also, Silverlight is needed for downloading Netflix movies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678306</id>
	<title>sigh....</title>
	<author>Michael Kristopeit</author>
	<datestamp>1269946620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>and the bloat begins...</htmltext>
<tokenext>and the bloat begins.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and the bloat begins...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31684330</id>
	<title>Re:The problem is that it promotes the use of Flas</title>
	<author>Canazza</author>
	<datestamp>1270027200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that the only viable alternative to Flash is Canvas.<br>Internet Explorer doesn't support it except through a plugin<br>Firefox supports it, but it's about 70\% the speed of Chrome<br>Chrome supports it, runs it the fastest (as far as I can tell anyway) but it's still about half as fast (Atleast) as an equivalent thing made in Flash.</p><p>Javascript needs a serious kick up the arse from where it is now to even think of taking on Flash. It also needs a decent Developer GUI that can be handled by Artists (like Flash has)</p><p>I love Canvas, and I love Javascript. But for ease of use, and for rapid development, I use Flash.<br>Also, AS3 has a much better custom class syntax than JS that's much more similar to C++/C#.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that the only viable alternative to Flash is Canvas.Internet Explorer does n't support it except through a pluginFirefox supports it , but it 's about 70 \ % the speed of ChromeChrome supports it , runs it the fastest ( as far as I can tell anyway ) but it 's still about half as fast ( Atleast ) as an equivalent thing made in Flash.Javascript needs a serious kick up the arse from where it is now to even think of taking on Flash .
It also needs a decent Developer GUI that can be handled by Artists ( like Flash has ) I love Canvas , and I love Javascript .
But for ease of use , and for rapid development , I use Flash.Also , AS3 has a much better custom class syntax than JS that 's much more similar to C + + /C # .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that the only viable alternative to Flash is Canvas.Internet Explorer doesn't support it except through a pluginFirefox supports it, but it's about 70\% the speed of ChromeChrome supports it, runs it the fastest (as far as I can tell anyway) but it's still about half as fast (Atleast) as an equivalent thing made in Flash.Javascript needs a serious kick up the arse from where it is now to even think of taking on Flash.
It also needs a decent Developer GUI that can be handled by Artists (like Flash has)I love Canvas, and I love Javascript.
But for ease of use, and for rapid development, I use Flash.Also, AS3 has a much better custom class syntax than JS that's much more similar to C++/C#.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31682668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31682550</id>
	<title>Re:Ah Ha!</title>
	<author>martin-boundary</author>
	<datestamp>1269967500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> "Same thing we ??? every night, Flashy. Try and take over the world!"</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Phew! Still there! &lt;/Quickly checks underpants&gt;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Same thing we ? ? ?
every night , Flashy .
Try and take over the world !
" Phew !
Still there !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "Same thing we ???
every night, Flashy.
Try and take over the world!
"

Phew!
Still there! 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678388</id>
	<title>Re:I'm ok with it.</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1269946920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does this mean that ports of Chrome to other platforms will automatically be ports of Flash to those platforms? I'm still kinda disappointed the Nintendo DS version of Opera doesn't support Flash, even though I have serious doubts that the DS has enough memory to run most Flash apps anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean that ports of Chrome to other platforms will automatically be ports of Flash to those platforms ?
I 'm still kinda disappointed the Nintendo DS version of Opera does n't support Flash , even though I have serious doubts that the DS has enough memory to run most Flash apps anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean that ports of Chrome to other platforms will automatically be ports of Flash to those platforms?
I'm still kinda disappointed the Nintendo DS version of Opera doesn't support Flash, even though I have serious doubts that the DS has enough memory to run most Flash apps anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31693734</id>
	<title>Re:goddammit google!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1270031580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you the type of person who also believes a politician stating, that he never was evil, and never will be again? ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you the type of person who also believes a politician stating , that he never was evil , and never will be again ?
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you the type of person who also believes a politician stating, that he never was evil, and never will be again?
^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678964</id>
	<title>Would prefer Java</title>
	<author>physburn</author>
	<datestamp>1269949500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd prefer Java to be packaged with Chrome. In the late 1995s we assumed that
Java applets would be the future of the web. Its still a good technology
make fast by the evolution of computing. Its just getting java packaged
with browsers, was the shortfall.
<p>
---
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/blogs/Java\%20Programming/feed.html" title="feeddistiller.com">Java Programming</a> [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ <a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/" title="feeddistiller.com">Feed Distiller</a> [feeddistiller.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd prefer Java to be packaged with Chrome .
In the late 1995s we assumed that Java applets would be the future of the web .
Its still a good technology make fast by the evolution of computing .
Its just getting java packaged with browsers , was the shortfall .
--- Java Programming [ feeddistiller.com ] Feed @ Feed Distiller [ feeddistiller.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd prefer Java to be packaged with Chrome.
In the late 1995s we assumed that
Java applets would be the future of the web.
Its still a good technology
make fast by the evolution of computing.
Its just getting java packaged
with browsers, was the shortfall.
---

Java Programming [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678168</id>
	<title>hopefully..</title>
	<author>Archon-X</author>
	<datestamp>1269946140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now, with a bit of luck, Chrome won't become unresponsive when it stumbles across flash applets.</p><p>I love Chrome, but its poor flash handling (and stalling when downloading) drives me bonkers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , with a bit of luck , Chrome wo n't become unresponsive when it stumbles across flash applets.I love Chrome , but its poor flash handling ( and stalling when downloading ) drives me bonkers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, with a bit of luck, Chrome won't become unresponsive when it stumbles across flash applets.I love Chrome, but its poor flash handling (and stalling when downloading) drives me bonkers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31684074</id>
	<title>Re:I'm ok with it.</title>
	<author>Jugalator</author>
	<datestamp>1270068180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The inclusion of Flash doesn't generate any issues that every other browser doesn't have. Since 99\% of people end up installing Flash, it's probably just as well to include it.</p> </div><p>Even better, IF you are going to use Flash anyway, this move will improve security since Google will now be able to push Flash updates transparently, and the Google blog topic on these news also brought up improvements to the sandbox to contain Flash. Instead of having to run it outside of the sandbox, I suppose?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The inclusion of Flash does n't generate any issues that every other browser does n't have .
Since 99 \ % of people end up installing Flash , it 's probably just as well to include it .
Even better , IF you are going to use Flash anyway , this move will improve security since Google will now be able to push Flash updates transparently , and the Google blog topic on these news also brought up improvements to the sandbox to contain Flash .
Instead of having to run it outside of the sandbox , I suppose ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The inclusion of Flash doesn't generate any issues that every other browser doesn't have.
Since 99\% of people end up installing Flash, it's probably just as well to include it.
Even better, IF you are going to use Flash anyway, this move will improve security since Google will now be able to push Flash updates transparently, and the Google blog topic on these news also brought up improvements to the sandbox to contain Flash.
Instead of having to run it outside of the sandbox, I suppose?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678908</id>
	<title>That video codec thing...H264</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269949260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gonna get interesting now...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gon na get interesting now.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gonna get interesting now...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31695864</id>
	<title>Re:I'm ok with it.</title>
	<author>DaVince21</author>
	<datestamp>1270042680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DS Browser comes from an age before the Browser Speed war, so it's much slower than it could be, anyway.<br>Heck, even the Wii occasionally has trouble with Flash (though those are more often memory-related than processing power-related).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DS Browser comes from an age before the Browser Speed war , so it 's much slower than it could be , anyway.Heck , even the Wii occasionally has trouble with Flash ( though those are more often memory-related than processing power-related ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DS Browser comes from an age before the Browser Speed war, so it's much slower than it could be, anyway.Heck, even the Wii occasionally has trouble with Flash (though those are more often memory-related than processing power-related).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678630</id>
	<title>The problem is that it promotes the use of Flash.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269948000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Flash should not be promoted, especially by a company like Google. Flash is not an example of a beneficial technology. It is nothing but a horrible bandage over the crippled client-side web "platform".</p><p>Technologies like Flash, Silverlight, and Java applets need to die out. They should not be used, and companies like Google, who have lots of intelligent engineering talent, should not be pressing for its use.</p><p>I would rather have seen Google embed Python in their browser, and let us have a real scripting environment. It'd be much better for large-scale software development than JavaScript, and would promote the development of higher-quality web apps that aren't restricted to the small number of platforms that Flash supports.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Flash should not be promoted , especially by a company like Google .
Flash is not an example of a beneficial technology .
It is nothing but a horrible bandage over the crippled client-side web " platform " .Technologies like Flash , Silverlight , and Java applets need to die out .
They should not be used , and companies like Google , who have lots of intelligent engineering talent , should not be pressing for its use.I would rather have seen Google embed Python in their browser , and let us have a real scripting environment .
It 'd be much better for large-scale software development than JavaScript , and would promote the development of higher-quality web apps that are n't restricted to the small number of platforms that Flash supports .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flash should not be promoted, especially by a company like Google.
Flash is not an example of a beneficial technology.
It is nothing but a horrible bandage over the crippled client-side web "platform".Technologies like Flash, Silverlight, and Java applets need to die out.
They should not be used, and companies like Google, who have lots of intelligent engineering talent, should not be pressing for its use.I would rather have seen Google embed Python in their browser, and let us have a real scripting environment.
It'd be much better for large-scale software development than JavaScript, and would promote the development of higher-quality web apps that aren't restricted to the small number of platforms that Flash supports.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31682290</id>
	<title>Re:Silverlight?</title>
	<author>MikeFM</author>
	<datestamp>1269966000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just got a Roku. $60 and you can watch on a tv. No Silverlight required.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just got a Roku .
$ 60 and you can watch on a tv .
No Silverlight required .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just got a Roku.
$60 and you can watch on a tv.
No Silverlight required.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31681654</id>
	<title>Joe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269962280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the real issue here is that google chrome claims to be an "open source project", but it's increasingly straying from that goal.</p><p>I've never liked the idea that such a huge amount of content on the internet requires adobe flash, closed-source software.  I am of the opinion that the web, of all things, should be open source, and that sites shouldn't require you to install proprietary programs in order to view it.</p><p>Google is also debating whether or not to start using a proprietary video format for Youtube which will be implemented along with HTML 5.  I sincerely hope they don't, because this would be a major blow to the mozilla foundation; they would either have to accept proprietary software for firefox or watch as users leave firefox because they can't watch youtube videos.  HTML 5, with its scripting abilities, should be a huge advantage to open source on the web, not its demise.</p><p>For that reason, I really don't like this decision.  Google seems to be betraying their allegiance to open source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the real issue here is that google chrome claims to be an " open source project " , but it 's increasingly straying from that goal.I 've never liked the idea that such a huge amount of content on the internet requires adobe flash , closed-source software .
I am of the opinion that the web , of all things , should be open source , and that sites should n't require you to install proprietary programs in order to view it.Google is also debating whether or not to start using a proprietary video format for Youtube which will be implemented along with HTML 5 .
I sincerely hope they do n't , because this would be a major blow to the mozilla foundation ; they would either have to accept proprietary software for firefox or watch as users leave firefox because they ca n't watch youtube videos .
HTML 5 , with its scripting abilities , should be a huge advantage to open source on the web , not its demise.For that reason , I really do n't like this decision .
Google seems to be betraying their allegiance to open source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the real issue here is that google chrome claims to be an "open source project", but it's increasingly straying from that goal.I've never liked the idea that such a huge amount of content on the internet requires adobe flash, closed-source software.
I am of the opinion that the web, of all things, should be open source, and that sites shouldn't require you to install proprietary programs in order to view it.Google is also debating whether or not to start using a proprietary video format for Youtube which will be implemented along with HTML 5.
I sincerely hope they don't, because this would be a major blow to the mozilla foundation; they would either have to accept proprietary software for firefox or watch as users leave firefox because they can't watch youtube videos.
HTML 5, with its scripting abilities, should be a huge advantage to open source on the web, not its demise.For that reason, I really don't like this decision.
Google seems to be betraying their allegiance to open source.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678644</id>
	<title>Chrome users like flash more than others it seems</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269948060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <a href="http://www.statowl.com/flash.php?timeframe=last\_6&amp;interval=month&amp;chart\_id=4&amp;fltr\_br=Chrome&amp;fltr\_os=&amp;fltr\_se=&amp;fltr\_cn=" title="statowl.com" rel="nofollow">Comparing this report (which shows flash plugin usage within chrome users)</a> [statowl.com] to <a href="http://www.statowl.com/flash.php" title="statowl.com" rel="nofollow">this report (which shows general flash plugin usage) - it seems only 2\% of chrome users have no flash plugin compared to 3.9\% across all browsers.
</a> [statowl.com]</p><p>
Depending on how you look at it, this is either a sign chrome users don't need additional help getting flash installed or that google is simply catering to their users who have a special affinity for the flash plugin - you decide.
</p><p>
My guess would be this is some special strategic bond between Adobe and Google to further push flash since <a href="http://www.statowl.com/plugin\_overview.php" title="statowl.com" rel="nofollow">silverlight is by far the fastest growing plugin technology</a> [statowl.com] - but that growth is partially tied to the growth of Windows 7 which comes with silverlight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Comparing this report ( which shows flash plugin usage within chrome users ) [ statowl.com ] to this report ( which shows general flash plugin usage ) - it seems only 2 \ % of chrome users have no flash plugin compared to 3.9 \ % across all browsers .
[ statowl.com ] Depending on how you look at it , this is either a sign chrome users do n't need additional help getting flash installed or that google is simply catering to their users who have a special affinity for the flash plugin - you decide .
My guess would be this is some special strategic bond between Adobe and Google to further push flash since silverlight is by far the fastest growing plugin technology [ statowl.com ] - but that growth is partially tied to the growth of Windows 7 which comes with silverlight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Comparing this report (which shows flash plugin usage within chrome users) [statowl.com] to this report (which shows general flash plugin usage) - it seems only 2\% of chrome users have no flash plugin compared to 3.9\% across all browsers.
[statowl.com]
Depending on how you look at it, this is either a sign chrome users don't need additional help getting flash installed or that google is simply catering to their users who have a special affinity for the flash plugin - you decide.
My guess would be this is some special strategic bond between Adobe and Google to further push flash since silverlight is by far the fastest growing plugin technology [statowl.com] - but that growth is partially tied to the growth of Windows 7 which comes with silverlight.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31679324</id>
	<title>bring it on...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269951480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>seems like battle lines are being drawn when it comes to this flash vs apple thing. well its loads of plastic tat sold to a few idiots vs the reality of almost total market penetration and a vast community of innovative developers.</p><p>tbh nothing would surprise me when it comes to jobs and his loyal band of followers. pathetic is not the word.</p><p>fuck apple - hopefully their need to control things will put the appstore model onto <b>all</b> their computers and the assorted swine who support them will just rot in their own walled garden. good riddance.</p><p>photoshop runs better on pc now, and thats about the only thing apple computers were good for! no wonder they're pissed at adobe!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>seems like battle lines are being drawn when it comes to this flash vs apple thing .
well its loads of plastic tat sold to a few idiots vs the reality of almost total market penetration and a vast community of innovative developers.tbh nothing would surprise me when it comes to jobs and his loyal band of followers .
pathetic is not the word.fuck apple - hopefully their need to control things will put the appstore model onto all their computers and the assorted swine who support them will just rot in their own walled garden .
good riddance.photoshop runs better on pc now , and thats about the only thing apple computers were good for !
no wonder they 're pissed at adobe !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>seems like battle lines are being drawn when it comes to this flash vs apple thing.
well its loads of plastic tat sold to a few idiots vs the reality of almost total market penetration and a vast community of innovative developers.tbh nothing would surprise me when it comes to jobs and his loyal band of followers.
pathetic is not the word.fuck apple - hopefully their need to control things will put the appstore model onto all their computers and the assorted swine who support them will just rot in their own walled garden.
good riddance.photoshop runs better on pc now, and thats about the only thing apple computers were good for!
no wonder they're pissed at adobe!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_209247_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31702564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31684330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31682668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31679238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_209247_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31682512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_209247_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_209247_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_209247_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31679022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_209247_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31682210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_209247_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31684388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_209247_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31679040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_209247_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31679710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_209247_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31695864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_209247_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_209247_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31682286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31679554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_209247_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31693734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_209247_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_209247_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31683508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_209247_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31684390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_209247_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31684114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_209247_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_209247_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31684074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_209247_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31682290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_209247_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31682278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_209247_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31681662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_209247_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_209247_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31680384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_209247_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31680184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_209247_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31682038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_209247_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31685106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_209247_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31679548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_209247_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31681426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_209247_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31679110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_209247_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31679318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_209247_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31682550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_209247_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31682306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_209247_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_209247_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31682246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_209247_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31680090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_209247_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_209247_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31681800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31679460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_209247_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_209247.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31679548
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_209247.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31684390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31680090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31679110
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_209247.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31679324
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_209247.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678580
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_209247.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31679354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_209247.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678730
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_209247.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678440
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31684388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31683508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678476
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31682290
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_209247.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31682550
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_209247.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678288
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_209247.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31681662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31693734
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_209247.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678964
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_209247.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678412
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_209247.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31679386
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_209247.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678302
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_209247.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31681026
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_209247.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678684
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31680384
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31682306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31682210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31684074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31682512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678756
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31679710
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31679460
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31681800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678388
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31695864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678630
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31679238
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31682668
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31684330
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31702564
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31679554
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31682286
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31679022
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31682246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31682038
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_209247.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31684114
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_209247.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31679318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31682278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31680184
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_209247.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31685106
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_209247.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31678276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31681426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_209247.31679040
</commentlist>
</conversation>
