<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_05_30_2011248</id>
	<title>EU Wants Multiple Browser Bundling On New PCs</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1243673820000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes with a link to Ars Technica's report that <i>"the EU is considering <a href="http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/05/eu-may-force-windows-users-to-choose-a-browser.ars">forcing Windows users to choose a browser to download and install</a> before they can first browse the Internet, according to <em> <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124362706194767281.html">The Wall Street Journal</a> </em> (subscription required). While the latest Windows 7 builds <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/03/04/2321224/Windows-7-Lets-You-Uninstall-IE8">let you uninstall IE8</a>, 'third-party browser makers like Opera, Mozilla and Google are pushing for tough sanctions against Microsoft. The EU would rather have a "ballot screen" for users to choose which browsers to download and install as well as which one to set as default. The bundling requirement might end up becoming a responsibility for manufacturers.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes with a link to Ars Technica 's report that " the EU is considering forcing Windows users to choose a browser to download and install before they can first browse the Internet , according to The Wall Street Journal ( subscription required ) .
While the latest Windows 7 builds let you uninstall IE8 , 'third-party browser makers like Opera , Mozilla and Google are pushing for tough sanctions against Microsoft .
The EU would rather have a " ballot screen " for users to choose which browsers to download and install as well as which one to set as default .
The bundling requirement might end up becoming a responsibility for manufacturers .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes with a link to Ars Technica's report that "the EU is considering forcing Windows users to choose a browser to download and install before they can first browse the Internet, according to  The Wall Street Journal  (subscription required).
While the latest Windows 7 builds let you uninstall IE8, 'third-party browser makers like Opera, Mozilla and Google are pushing for tough sanctions against Microsoft.
The EU would rather have a "ballot screen" for users to choose which browsers to download and install as well as which one to set as default.
The bundling requirement might end up becoming a responsibility for manufacturers.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28154885</id>
	<title>Re:Hey</title>
	<author>mgblst</author>
	<datestamp>1243697760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No.</p><p>You don't think they will think about this shit? Or do you think every one is as ignorant (which apparently is insightful at slashdot) as you are?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No.You do n't think they will think about this shit ?
Or do you think every one is as ignorant ( which apparently is insightful at slashdot ) as you are ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.You don't think they will think about this shit?
Or do you think every one is as ignorant (which apparently is insightful at slashdot) as you are?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152771</id>
	<title>Be careful what you wish for</title>
	<author>plusser</author>
	<datestamp>1243680420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder whether as a result of this policy that IE6 becomes one of the many different browser options, just to keep happy those businesses with legacy code that wont work on anything else!</p><p>Now that really would cause Microsoft a headache - competing with its own lack of standards...</p><p>Not that many web designers will be happy with this though!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder whether as a result of this policy that IE6 becomes one of the many different browser options , just to keep happy those businesses with legacy code that wont work on anything else ! Now that really would cause Microsoft a headache - competing with its own lack of standards...Not that many web designers will be happy with this though !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder whether as a result of this policy that IE6 becomes one of the many different browser options, just to keep happy those businesses with legacy code that wont work on anything else!Now that really would cause Microsoft a headache - competing with its own lack of standards...Not that many web designers will be happy with this though!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153145</id>
	<title>Firewalled noscript web browser</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1243682820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's not really bundling now, is it? How do they server this list to the user? Must be a webpage, Shirley?</p></div><p>Gopher. Or a minimal web browser that can't resolve DNS outside <tt>browser.microsoft.com.</tt></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not really bundling now , is it ?
How do they server this list to the user ?
Must be a webpage , Shirley ? Gopher .
Or a minimal web browser that ca n't resolve DNS outside browser.microsoft.com .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not really bundling now, is it?
How do they server this list to the user?
Must be a webpage, Shirley?Gopher.
Or a minimal web browser that can't resolve DNS outside browser.microsoft.com.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152443</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153253</id>
	<title>Re:For fuck's sake...</title>
	<author>Ektanoor</author>
	<datestamp>1243683540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Fascists were not doing anything wrong in the 30's and they are not doing anything wrong now. Yes Fascism sucks and is completely totalitarian, but their aim for the good will of the Nation, without needless democracy is \_NOT\_ evil or even slightly unpleasant."</p><p>Sorry, pal, but I've been so messed on politics that your argumentation just flashed like a mirror on my memories. I pushed up, a little bit, the arguments, but sincerly, it is almost the same wordings.</p><p>Have you forget the findings made by DoJ in the 90's?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Fascists were not doing anything wrong in the 30 's and they are not doing anything wrong now .
Yes Fascism sucks and is completely totalitarian , but their aim for the good will of the Nation , without needless democracy is \ _NOT \ _ evil or even slightly unpleasant .
" Sorry , pal , but I 've been so messed on politics that your argumentation just flashed like a mirror on my memories .
I pushed up , a little bit , the arguments , but sincerly , it is almost the same wordings.Have you forget the findings made by DoJ in the 90 's ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Fascists were not doing anything wrong in the 30's and they are not doing anything wrong now.
Yes Fascism sucks and is completely totalitarian, but their aim for the good will of the Nation, without needless democracy is \_NOT\_ evil or even slightly unpleasant.
"Sorry, pal, but I've been so messed on politics that your argumentation just flashed like a mirror on my memories.
I pushed up, a little bit, the arguments, but sincerly, it is almost the same wordings.Have you forget the findings made by DoJ in the 90's?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153593</id>
	<title>Obvious question</title>
	<author>Mr\_Silver</author>
	<datestamp>1243686000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why exactly would an OEM want to do this?</p><p>It's not like bundling Firefox with their PC is going to increase their sales or profit. If Opera were going to pay them to bundle their browser, they would have done it by now (as someone has already pointed out, Microsoft doesn't prevent this).</p><p>In short, I really cannot see any OEM's bothering to do this - and so nothing will change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why exactly would an OEM want to do this ? It 's not like bundling Firefox with their PC is going to increase their sales or profit .
If Opera were going to pay them to bundle their browser , they would have done it by now ( as someone has already pointed out , Microsoft does n't prevent this ) .In short , I really can not see any OEM 's bothering to do this - and so nothing will change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why exactly would an OEM want to do this?It's not like bundling Firefox with their PC is going to increase their sales or profit.
If Opera were going to pay them to bundle their browser, they would have done it by now (as someone has already pointed out, Microsoft doesn't prevent this).In short, I really cannot see any OEM's bothering to do this - and so nothing will change.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152989</id>
	<title>I demand multiple radios in my new car</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243681800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not fair that General Motors put only their own radio in my Malibu.<br> <br>Worse, they tied my Chevy's radio to the operating system: the volume turns up when the car goes faster, and it knows which key fob I used to unlock the doors. This is anticompetitive and monopolist.<br> <br>I demand that GM install multiple radios -- one each from Ford, Chrysler, Bosch, Blaupunkt, and Kraco, plus an open-source handwired crystal receiver from Heathkit -- and I demand that they print the wiring diagram on the hood (so I can design my own radio anytime I come down off the Percocet).<br>Every time I start the car, I should be presented with a menu allowing me to choose which will serve as the "default radio."</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not fair that General Motors put only their own radio in my Malibu .
Worse , they tied my Chevy 's radio to the operating system : the volume turns up when the car goes faster , and it knows which key fob I used to unlock the doors .
This is anticompetitive and monopolist .
I demand that GM install multiple radios -- one each from Ford , Chrysler , Bosch , Blaupunkt , and Kraco , plus an open-source handwired crystal receiver from Heathkit -- and I demand that they print the wiring diagram on the hood ( so I can design my own radio anytime I come down off the Percocet ) .Every time I start the car , I should be presented with a menu allowing me to choose which will serve as the " default radio .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not fair that General Motors put only their own radio in my Malibu.
Worse, they tied my Chevy's radio to the operating system: the volume turns up when the car goes faster, and it knows which key fob I used to unlock the doors.
This is anticompetitive and monopolist.
I demand that GM install multiple radios -- one each from Ford, Chrysler, Bosch, Blaupunkt, and Kraco, plus an open-source handwired crystal receiver from Heathkit -- and I demand that they print the wiring diagram on the hood (so I can design my own radio anytime I come down off the Percocet).Every time I start the car, I should be presented with a menu allowing me to choose which will serve as the "default radio.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28157349</id>
	<title>Re:I demand multiple radios in my new car</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243774980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Strawman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw\_man\_fallacy<br>How in the world did you get mod as insightful?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Strawman : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw \ _man \ _fallacyHow in the world did you get mod as insightful ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Strawman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw\_man\_fallacyHow in the world did you get mod as insightful?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152989</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152721</id>
	<title>Re:This just cracks me up...</title>
	<author>CarpetShark</author>
	<datestamp>1243680060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well that was insightful.</p><p>If firefox wasn't free, it wouldn't have had ANY chance against the monopolistic bundling of IE.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well that was insightful.If firefox was n't free , it would n't have had ANY chance against the monopolistic bundling of IE .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well that was insightful.If firefox wasn't free, it wouldn't have had ANY chance against the monopolistic bundling of IE.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28156613</id>
	<title>Unbundle</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1243763400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Force MS to remove IE from windows, and then let OEMs bundle whatever browser they want...<br>99\% of users receive windows preinstalled with a hardware purchase anyway, and most oems already bundle all kinds of stuff with their installs.</p><p>And before you bring up linux, this is exactly how linux works, Linus only distributes a kernel and it is up to third parties to bundle it together with other apps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Force MS to remove IE from windows , and then let OEMs bundle whatever browser they want...99 \ % of users receive windows preinstalled with a hardware purchase anyway , and most oems already bundle all kinds of stuff with their installs.And before you bring up linux , this is exactly how linux works , Linus only distributes a kernel and it is up to third parties to bundle it together with other apps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Force MS to remove IE from windows, and then let OEMs bundle whatever browser they want...99\% of users receive windows preinstalled with a hardware purchase anyway, and most oems already bundle all kinds of stuff with their installs.And before you bring up linux, this is exactly how linux works, Linus only distributes a kernel and it is up to third parties to bundle it together with other apps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153931</id>
	<title>f\_ eu</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243688460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I missed the part where folks in eu are being forced to buy MS anything.  If they don't like the product they can use *nix or macos or whatever.  MS should tell them take it or leave it.  Let's see how well they do w/o any MS products.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I missed the part where folks in eu are being forced to buy MS anything .
If they do n't like the product they can use * nix or macos or whatever .
MS should tell them take it or leave it .
Let 's see how well they do w/o any MS products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I missed the part where folks in eu are being forced to buy MS anything.
If they don't like the product they can use *nix or macos or whatever.
MS should tell them take it or leave it.
Let's see how well they do w/o any MS products.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28160147</id>
	<title>Re:Forcing OEMs?</title>
	<author>RightSaidFred99</author>
	<datestamp>1243800060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So you're saying the problem is solved then, right?  As OEMs can already bundle whatever browsers they want with Windows.  So I'm not clear what exactly you're even talking about?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So you 're saying the problem is solved then , right ?
As OEMs can already bundle whatever browsers they want with Windows .
So I 'm not clear what exactly you 're even talking about ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you're saying the problem is solved then, right?
As OEMs can already bundle whatever browsers they want with Windows.
So I'm not clear what exactly you're even talking about?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28160211</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft has a right to Windows</title>
	<author>RightSaidFred99</author>
	<datestamp>1243800420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You lost me when you incorrectly decided that Operating System means something it doesn't.  An operating system is something a user installs on their computer and which provides them some set of functionality to get work done.</p><p>You must think the Market is a CS class.  It isn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You lost me when you incorrectly decided that Operating System means something it does n't .
An operating system is something a user installs on their computer and which provides them some set of functionality to get work done.You must think the Market is a CS class .
It is n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You lost me when you incorrectly decided that Operating System means something it doesn't.
An operating system is something a user installs on their computer and which provides them some set of functionality to get work done.You must think the Market is a CS class.
It isn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28157423</id>
	<title>Re:In a near future...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243776360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>why wasn't this rated "funny"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>why was n't this rated " funny " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why wasn't this rated "funny"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28156899</id>
	<title>Re:This just cracks me up...</title>
	<author>Lennie</author>
	<datestamp>1243767960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Euh... but:</p><p>1. opera is in business to make money</p><p>2. mozilla is in business to spread open web standards and forge innovation, IE/Microsoft is not helping in that department</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Euh... but : 1. opera is in business to make money2 .
mozilla is in business to spread open web standards and forge innovation , IE/Microsoft is not helping in that department</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Euh... but:1. opera is in business to make money2.
mozilla is in business to spread open web standards and forge innovation, IE/Microsoft is not helping in that department</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28166551</id>
	<title>Re:This just cracks me up...</title>
	<author>hkmwbz</author>
	<datestamp>1243863660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So the villains are the ones reporting the crime, not the person breaking the law?

<p>By the way, Google, Mozilla, Adobe, and many other companies joined the complaint.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the villains are the ones reporting the crime , not the person breaking the law ?
By the way , Google , Mozilla , Adobe , and many other companies joined the complaint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the villains are the ones reporting the crime, not the person breaking the law?
By the way, Google, Mozilla, Adobe, and many other companies joined the complaint.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153895</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153247</id>
	<title>Re:For fuck's sake...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243683540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft wasn't doing anything wrong bundling IE in the 90's and they're not doing anything wrong now.</p></div><p>Yeah, except for breaking antitrust law and undermining the operation of the free market in a way that almost certainly is responsible for the fact that Web technologies have almost completely stopped advancing for the last decade.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft was n't doing anything wrong bundling IE in the 90 's and they 're not doing anything wrong now.Yeah , except for breaking antitrust law and undermining the operation of the free market in a way that almost certainly is responsible for the fact that Web technologies have almost completely stopped advancing for the last decade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft wasn't doing anything wrong bundling IE in the 90's and they're not doing anything wrong now.Yeah, except for breaking antitrust law and undermining the operation of the free market in a way that almost certainly is responsible for the fact that Web technologies have almost completely stopped advancing for the last decade.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152831</id>
	<title>Re:That's not a fucking monopoly.</title>
	<author>Jurily</author>
	<datestamp>1243680780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You can't force them to support other browsers, hell, they could only support internet explorer if they wanted to.</p></div><p>Your choices:</p><p>Internet Explorer 8 (Recommended)<br>AOL Explorer<br>Lynx</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't force them to support other browsers , hell , they could only support internet explorer if they wanted to.Your choices : Internet Explorer 8 ( Recommended ) AOL ExplorerLynx</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't force them to support other browsers, hell, they could only support internet explorer if they wanted to.Your choices:Internet Explorer 8 (Recommended)AOL ExplorerLynx
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152595</id>
	<title>Re:This just cracks me up...</title>
	<author>eln</author>
	<datestamp>1243679220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Mozilla Foundation makes many tens of millions of dollars from Google.  If nobody installs Firefox, Google isn't going to be giving them that kind of money anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Mozilla Foundation makes many tens of millions of dollars from Google .
If nobody installs Firefox , Google is n't going to be giving them that kind of money anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Mozilla Foundation makes many tens of millions of dollars from Google.
If nobody installs Firefox, Google isn't going to be giving them that kind of money anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28166031</id>
	<title>Re:I demand multiple radios in my new car</title>
	<author>hkmwbz</author>
	<datestamp>1243858920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How much do Microsoft pay you to shill for them?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How much do Microsoft pay you to shill for them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much do Microsoft pay you to shill for them?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152989</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28157075</id>
	<title>Except that Internet Explorer cannot be removed</title>
	<author>Antique Geekmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1243770600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's right: you \_still\_ cannot actually remove Internet Explorer, only the latest versions overlaid on toop of the older ones. So even a manufacturer or environment where IE is considered a major security problem (which it is, historically), is stuck with it on every machine.</p><p>And don't forget that Microsoft Update tools \_only\_ work with Internet Explorer. Not using IE makes keeping your Windows machine up to date with security patches particularly awkward, at least for people without the very expensive and awkward to maintain centralized patch management technologies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's right : you \ _still \ _ can not actually remove Internet Explorer , only the latest versions overlaid on toop of the older ones .
So even a manufacturer or environment where IE is considered a major security problem ( which it is , historically ) , is stuck with it on every machine.And do n't forget that Microsoft Update tools \ _only \ _ work with Internet Explorer .
Not using IE makes keeping your Windows machine up to date with security patches particularly awkward , at least for people without the very expensive and awkward to maintain centralized patch management technologies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's right: you \_still\_ cannot actually remove Internet Explorer, only the latest versions overlaid on toop of the older ones.
So even a manufacturer or environment where IE is considered a major security problem (which it is, historically), is stuck with it on every machine.And don't forget that Microsoft Update tools \_only\_ work with Internet Explorer.
Not using IE makes keeping your Windows machine up to date with security patches particularly awkward, at least for people without the very expensive and awkward to maintain centralized patch management technologies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153895</id>
	<title>Re:This just cracks me up...</title>
	<author>Colonel Korn</author>
	<datestamp>1243688280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Mozilla Foundation makes many tens of millions of dollars from Google.  If nobody installs Firefox, Google isn't going to be giving them that kind of money anymore.</p></div><p>The real villains aren't the mozilla people - they're the Opera devs.  They put this ball in motion.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Mozilla Foundation makes many tens of millions of dollars from Google .
If nobody installs Firefox , Google is n't going to be giving them that kind of money anymore.The real villains are n't the mozilla people - they 're the Opera devs .
They put this ball in motion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Mozilla Foundation makes many tens of millions of dollars from Google.
If nobody installs Firefox, Google isn't going to be giving them that kind of money anymore.The real villains aren't the mozilla people - they're the Opera devs.
They put this ball in motion.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28155757</id>
	<title>Re:This just cracks me up...</title>
	<author>Kalriath</author>
	<datestamp>1243707240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you paid attention, you'd see that Microsoft is making major headway in bringing IE up to the standard a browser should be.  It finally doesn't choke on valid XHTML/CSS, and even Slashdot looks decent in it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you paid attention , you 'd see that Microsoft is making major headway in bringing IE up to the standard a browser should be .
It finally does n't choke on valid XHTML/CSS , and even Slashdot looks decent in it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you paid attention, you'd see that Microsoft is making major headway in bringing IE up to the standard a browser should be.
It finally doesn't choke on valid XHTML/CSS, and even Slashdot looks decent in it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153331</id>
	<title>Re:No fan of MS, but...</title>
	<author>mikesd81</author>
	<datestamp>1243684020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And KDE comes w/ Konqueror. Is that bad? Gnome comes with Epiphany. Is that bad? Yes, Firefox is included generally w/ a distro. But these are all bundled w/ the DE. So should they not be, or is it okay because FF is included?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And KDE comes w/ Konqueror .
Is that bad ?
Gnome comes with Epiphany .
Is that bad ?
Yes , Firefox is included generally w/ a distro .
But these are all bundled w/ the DE .
So should they not be , or is it okay because FF is included ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And KDE comes w/ Konqueror.
Is that bad?
Gnome comes with Epiphany.
Is that bad?
Yes, Firefox is included generally w/ a distro.
But these are all bundled w/ the DE.
So should they not be, or is it okay because FF is included?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152799</id>
	<title>the truth</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243680600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you're right.</p><p>If you have a little spare time, play great game here: <a href="http://foxpl.mybrute.com/" title="mybrute.com" rel="nofollow">mybrute.com</a> [mybrute.com]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-) bet youll like it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 're right.If you have a little spare time , play great game here : mybrute.com [ mybrute.com ] ; - ) bet youll like it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you're right.If you have a little spare time, play great game here: mybrute.com [mybrute.com] ;-) bet youll like it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28165681</id>
	<title>ASININE EU</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243853820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if people wonder why europeans are less and less interested in a european parliament , constitution and laws this is the perfect example, until these legislators - pardon, BUREAUCRATS- focus on serious issues people will simply let the european "concept" just sit out and die !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if people wonder why europeans are less and less interested in a european parliament , constitution and laws this is the perfect example , until these legislators - pardon , BUREAUCRATS- focus on serious issues people will simply let the european " concept " just sit out and die !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if people wonder why europeans are less and less interested in a european parliament , constitution and laws this is the perfect example, until these legislators - pardon, BUREAUCRATS- focus on serious issues people will simply let the european "concept" just sit out and die !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153411</id>
	<title>Re:This just cracks me up...</title>
	<author>mqduck</author>
	<datestamp>1243684800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>those other browsers are free so who cares if Windows users are forced to use IE?? It's not like Firefox is a company and they are losing out on revenue.</p></div><p>You're right, people who care about things besides money are *hilarious*.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>those other browsers are free so who cares if Windows users are forced to use IE ? ?
It 's not like Firefox is a company and they are losing out on revenue.You 're right , people who care about things besides money are * hilarious * .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>those other browsers are free so who cares if Windows users are forced to use IE??
It's not like Firefox is a company and they are losing out on revenue.You're right, people who care about things besides money are *hilarious*.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28156487</id>
	<title>What's next...</title>
	<author>HigH5</author>
	<datestamp>1243760820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>...forcing Linux distros bundling Internet Explorer?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...forcing Linux distros bundling Internet Explorer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...forcing Linux distros bundling Internet Explorer?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153155</id>
	<title>Re:Bah Humbug</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1243682880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok. I can help you here. I am a professional decider.<br>Just vote for the Pirate party, send me all your money and precious things, go buy a German spiked helmet, make a parachute drop over Fox or some government (you won't need the parachute), and see if you can hit the biggest crook in the area.</p><p>Convenient, to let others do the thinking, isn't it?<br>Do you feel the uplifting sense of knowing your purpose in life already?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok. I can help you here .
I am a professional decider.Just vote for the Pirate party , send me all your money and precious things , go buy a German spiked helmet , make a parachute drop over Fox or some government ( you wo n't need the parachute ) , and see if you can hit the biggest crook in the area.Convenient , to let others do the thinking , is n't it ? Do you feel the uplifting sense of knowing your purpose in life already ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok. I can help you here.
I am a professional decider.Just vote for the Pirate party, send me all your money and precious things, go buy a German spiked helmet, make a parachute drop over Fox or some government (you won't need the parachute), and see if you can hit the biggest crook in the area.Convenient, to let others do the thinking, isn't it?Do you feel the uplifting sense of knowing your purpose in life already?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152309</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28156497</id>
	<title>But MS does NOT want to support standards</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1243761000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just ask yourself, why Chrome. What on earth would google do with their own browser? Just one thing and one thing only, try to FORCE all other browsers to increase their capabilities.
</p><p>If you are involved with the web, then MS/IE is the ISA bus. It is the 8 bit application that still got to be supported. It is keeping the whole web back.
</p><p>I could right now design a web app that will blow the socks of anything available, and it can never be commercial because it won't run on IE6/IE7 or even IE8. Google is pushing like mad to develop javascript libraries to code around IE so that stuff other browsers properly support can be made to work under IE as well, but the performance impact is a killer. IE is already by far the slowest browser, adding extra javascript to make it more capable is hardly going to help with web-apps.
</p><p>MS doesn't want web-apps, because it can't control them. More over, their IE team either has secret orders or just isn't competent. You got to wonder what the reason is Opera, Apple, KDE, Mozilla and some others can implement the standards with speed and MS just can't. Lack of resources, hidden agenda or just plain incompetence. Take PNG encoding, MS still hasn't got it right. The official message is they want to support it, so why can't their coders do something everyone else has been doing for years?
</p><p>So the browser wars are still very much on. But this time it ain't a battle for who sells the most browsers. It is a battle for the internet itself. Their is Google on one side, that wants to have web-based apps and MS which doesn't. As long as IE is the dominant browser, web-apps will have to be either crippled or limit themselves to certain browsers which is economic suicide.
</p><p>MS doesn't care about standards or even market share, it just wants the web to die and go away. Lets not forget that MS looses money to the web, their encarta offering had to be killed because Wikipedia killed it. Do you really think MS wants to risk fully HTML5 capable browsers killing its office line? google docs is good enough for me and if google docs could ditch IE support it would be even better. That is what MS fears.
</p><p>The browser wars are over, the battle for the internet has just started.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just ask yourself , why Chrome .
What on earth would google do with their own browser ?
Just one thing and one thing only , try to FORCE all other browsers to increase their capabilities .
If you are involved with the web , then MS/IE is the ISA bus .
It is the 8 bit application that still got to be supported .
It is keeping the whole web back .
I could right now design a web app that will blow the socks of anything available , and it can never be commercial because it wo n't run on IE6/IE7 or even IE8 .
Google is pushing like mad to develop javascript libraries to code around IE so that stuff other browsers properly support can be made to work under IE as well , but the performance impact is a killer .
IE is already by far the slowest browser , adding extra javascript to make it more capable is hardly going to help with web-apps .
MS does n't want web-apps , because it ca n't control them .
More over , their IE team either has secret orders or just is n't competent .
You got to wonder what the reason is Opera , Apple , KDE , Mozilla and some others can implement the standards with speed and MS just ca n't .
Lack of resources , hidden agenda or just plain incompetence .
Take PNG encoding , MS still has n't got it right .
The official message is they want to support it , so why ca n't their coders do something everyone else has been doing for years ?
So the browser wars are still very much on .
But this time it ai n't a battle for who sells the most browsers .
It is a battle for the internet itself .
Their is Google on one side , that wants to have web-based apps and MS which does n't .
As long as IE is the dominant browser , web-apps will have to be either crippled or limit themselves to certain browsers which is economic suicide .
MS does n't care about standards or even market share , it just wants the web to die and go away .
Lets not forget that MS looses money to the web , their encarta offering had to be killed because Wikipedia killed it .
Do you really think MS wants to risk fully HTML5 capable browsers killing its office line ?
google docs is good enough for me and if google docs could ditch IE support it would be even better .
That is what MS fears .
The browser wars are over , the battle for the internet has just started .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just ask yourself, why Chrome.
What on earth would google do with their own browser?
Just one thing and one thing only, try to FORCE all other browsers to increase their capabilities.
If you are involved with the web, then MS/IE is the ISA bus.
It is the 8 bit application that still got to be supported.
It is keeping the whole web back.
I could right now design a web app that will blow the socks of anything available, and it can never be commercial because it won't run on IE6/IE7 or even IE8.
Google is pushing like mad to develop javascript libraries to code around IE so that stuff other browsers properly support can be made to work under IE as well, but the performance impact is a killer.
IE is already by far the slowest browser, adding extra javascript to make it more capable is hardly going to help with web-apps.
MS doesn't want web-apps, because it can't control them.
More over, their IE team either has secret orders or just isn't competent.
You got to wonder what the reason is Opera, Apple, KDE, Mozilla and some others can implement the standards with speed and MS just can't.
Lack of resources, hidden agenda or just plain incompetence.
Take PNG encoding, MS still hasn't got it right.
The official message is they want to support it, so why can't their coders do something everyone else has been doing for years?
So the browser wars are still very much on.
But this time it ain't a battle for who sells the most browsers.
It is a battle for the internet itself.
Their is Google on one side, that wants to have web-based apps and MS which doesn't.
As long as IE is the dominant browser, web-apps will have to be either crippled or limit themselves to certain browsers which is economic suicide.
MS doesn't care about standards or even market share, it just wants the web to die and go away.
Lets not forget that MS looses money to the web, their encarta offering had to be killed because Wikipedia killed it.
Do you really think MS wants to risk fully HTML5 capable browsers killing its office line?
google docs is good enough for me and if google docs could ditch IE support it would be even better.
That is what MS fears.
The browser wars are over, the battle for the internet has just started.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152285</id>
	<title>This just cracks me up...</title>
	<author>Schnoogs</author>
	<datestamp>1243677600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>those other browsers are free so who cares if Windows users are forced to use IE??  It's not like Firefox is a company and they are losing out on revenue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>those other browsers are free so who cares if Windows users are forced to use IE ? ?
It 's not like Firefox is a company and they are losing out on revenue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>those other browsers are free so who cares if Windows users are forced to use IE??
It's not like Firefox is a company and they are losing out on revenue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152307</id>
	<title>Forcing OEMs?</title>
	<author>nmb3000</author>
	<datestamp>1243677720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The bundling requirement might end up becoming a responsibility for manufacturers.</i></p><p>This is just as stupid as forcing Microsoft to bundle alternative browser binaries with Windows.</p><p>The solution to the problem is to force Microsoft to <b>allow</b> OEMs to bundle other browsers with Windows the same way they do anything else.  Microsoft's dictating what software can be included with Windows is the real anti-competitive behavior here -- so fix it by removing that behavior.  If Dell wants to include Firefox, let them. If Opera wants to sign a deal with HP to include its browser on all their machines, let them.</p><p>Don't force <b>all</b> OEMs to include <b>all</b> browsers.  That's stupid and impractical.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The bundling requirement might end up becoming a responsibility for manufacturers.This is just as stupid as forcing Microsoft to bundle alternative browser binaries with Windows.The solution to the problem is to force Microsoft to allow OEMs to bundle other browsers with Windows the same way they do anything else .
Microsoft 's dictating what software can be included with Windows is the real anti-competitive behavior here -- so fix it by removing that behavior .
If Dell wants to include Firefox , let them .
If Opera wants to sign a deal with HP to include its browser on all their machines , let them.Do n't force all OEMs to include all browsers .
That 's stupid and impractical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bundling requirement might end up becoming a responsibility for manufacturers.This is just as stupid as forcing Microsoft to bundle alternative browser binaries with Windows.The solution to the problem is to force Microsoft to allow OEMs to bundle other browsers with Windows the same way they do anything else.
Microsoft's dictating what software can be included with Windows is the real anti-competitive behavior here -- so fix it by removing that behavior.
If Dell wants to include Firefox, let them.
If Opera wants to sign a deal with HP to include its browser on all their machines, let them.Don't force all OEMs to include all browsers.
That's stupid and impractical.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28165839</id>
	<title>Too late? When did the US sorted that one out?</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1243856580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh yeah, never. That was much better.</p><p>There is such a thing as reputation, if anything this is yet another proof to show people about the kind of company they are dealing with when allowing Windows in their machines....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh yeah , never .
That was much better.There is such a thing as reputation , if anything this is yet another proof to show people about the kind of company they are dealing with when allowing Windows in their machines... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh yeah, never.
That was much better.There is such a thing as reputation, if anything this is yet another proof to show people about the kind of company they are dealing with when allowing Windows in their machines....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152895</id>
	<title>Read much?</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1243681320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you were literate, you might understand that no one is requiring Microsoft to support other browsers.  Microsoft is being required to make options available.  Maybe I'm being unfair, and you really are literate.  Could be, in your native language "making available" and "support" are synonymous.  Nanu Nanu, dude.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you were literate , you might understand that no one is requiring Microsoft to support other browsers .
Microsoft is being required to make options available .
Maybe I 'm being unfair , and you really are literate .
Could be , in your native language " making available " and " support " are synonymous .
Nanu Nanu , dude .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you were literate, you might understand that no one is requiring Microsoft to support other browsers.
Microsoft is being required to make options available.
Maybe I'm being unfair, and you really are literate.
Could be, in your native language "making available" and "support" are synonymous.
Nanu Nanu, dude.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28157221</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft has a right to Windows</title>
	<author>leomekenkamp</author>
	<datestamp>1243773120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft has the full right to do what it wants with Windows.</p></div><p>No. That right you speak of is nor full nor an absolute. One cannot simply use its property to for instance kill people with it. One has to keep to the law. The EU states that Microsoft has used Windows for illegal anti-competitive behaviour, that is what the punishment is about.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft has the full right to do what it wants with Windows.No .
That right you speak of is nor full nor an absolute .
One can not simply use its property to for instance kill people with it .
One has to keep to the law .
The EU states that Microsoft has used Windows for illegal anti-competitive behaviour , that is what the punishment is about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft has the full right to do what it wants with Windows.No.
That right you speak of is nor full nor an absolute.
One cannot simply use its property to for instance kill people with it.
One has to keep to the law.
The EU states that Microsoft has used Windows for illegal anti-competitive behaviour, that is what the punishment is about.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153455</id>
	<title>Microsoft has a right to Windows</title>
	<author>Ektanoor</author>
	<datestamp>1243685100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, let's put one thing straight:</p><p>Microsoft has the full right to do what it wants with Windows.</p><p>If the wants to forbid anyone else to bundle, it can do it. If it wants to scrap it into the trashcan, be it.</p><p>What Microsoft has no right to do is to claim what Windows is not. They claim it is an Operating System. Cool, I have my little-pretty program here, I want to run it on Windows. No way? Then don't tell me you are selling an operating system. Call it whatever you want - a all-bundled system, an application complex, the bloat of the gloat or the gloat of the bloat...</p><p>But "Operating System" is something with a clear definition, with a definite purposefulness and for which Microsoft has no patents, trademarks or special privileges. Stop using it, stop using the OS definitions to describe Windows and be happy. Like Sony and other companies.</p><p>However Microsoft does no do it. Why?</p><p>Because it is afraid of loosing potential market?</p><p>It fears that someone may come with some new bright idea and they will not be able to surrepteously bundle it?</p><p>Because this may create independent systems upon which Microsoft will not have a hand on?</p><p>Because it will be much harder to asfixiate a concurrent?</p><p>And for how long such opportunism will continue? Until all creativism is crushed and the land barren?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , let 's put one thing straight : Microsoft has the full right to do what it wants with Windows.If the wants to forbid anyone else to bundle , it can do it .
If it wants to scrap it into the trashcan , be it.What Microsoft has no right to do is to claim what Windows is not .
They claim it is an Operating System .
Cool , I have my little-pretty program here , I want to run it on Windows .
No way ?
Then do n't tell me you are selling an operating system .
Call it whatever you want - a all-bundled system , an application complex , the bloat of the gloat or the gloat of the bloat...But " Operating System " is something with a clear definition , with a definite purposefulness and for which Microsoft has no patents , trademarks or special privileges .
Stop using it , stop using the OS definitions to describe Windows and be happy .
Like Sony and other companies.However Microsoft does no do it .
Why ? Because it is afraid of loosing potential market ? It fears that someone may come with some new bright idea and they will not be able to surrepteously bundle it ? Because this may create independent systems upon which Microsoft will not have a hand on ? Because it will be much harder to asfixiate a concurrent ? And for how long such opportunism will continue ?
Until all creativism is crushed and the land barren ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, let's put one thing straight:Microsoft has the full right to do what it wants with Windows.If the wants to forbid anyone else to bundle, it can do it.
If it wants to scrap it into the trashcan, be it.What Microsoft has no right to do is to claim what Windows is not.
They claim it is an Operating System.
Cool, I have my little-pretty program here, I want to run it on Windows.
No way?
Then don't tell me you are selling an operating system.
Call it whatever you want - a all-bundled system, an application complex, the bloat of the gloat or the gloat of the bloat...But "Operating System" is something with a clear definition, with a definite purposefulness and for which Microsoft has no patents, trademarks or special privileges.
Stop using it, stop using the OS definitions to describe Windows and be happy.
Like Sony and other companies.However Microsoft does no do it.
Why?Because it is afraid of loosing potential market?It fears that someone may come with some new bright idea and they will not be able to surrepteously bundle it?Because this may create independent systems upon which Microsoft will not have a hand on?Because it will be much harder to asfixiate a concurrent?And for how long such opportunism will continue?
Until all creativism is crushed and the land barren?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152961</id>
	<title>Re:Forcing OEMs?</title>
	<author>JAlexoi</author>
	<datestamp>1243681680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Allowing and not forcing them is what led to current situation.<br>
Why? Because, since no one is making MS to allow competition, they feel free to threaten the manufacturers in a nonofficial way. You know, the way they do it now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Allowing and not forcing them is what led to current situation .
Why ? Because , since no one is making MS to allow competition , they feel free to threaten the manufacturers in a nonofficial way .
You know , the way they do it now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Allowing and not forcing them is what led to current situation.
Why? Because, since no one is making MS to allow competition, they feel free to threaten the manufacturers in a nonofficial way.
You know, the way they do it now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28154301</id>
	<title>Re:No fan of MS, but...</title>
	<author>Elektroschock</author>
	<datestamp>1243691220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not market regulation. It is enforcement of the law following a complaint of Opera. As simple as that. Microsoft fooled the Commission once with a soft remedy in the media player case, so the Commission won't let that happen a second time and be more specific.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not market regulation .
It is enforcement of the law following a complaint of Opera .
As simple as that .
Microsoft fooled the Commission once with a soft remedy in the media player case , so the Commission wo n't let that happen a second time and be more specific .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not market regulation.
It is enforcement of the law following a complaint of Opera.
As simple as that.
Microsoft fooled the Commission once with a soft remedy in the media player case, so the Commission won't let that happen a second time and be more specific.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28155623</id>
	<title>Re:In a near future...</title>
	<author>jesseck</author>
	<datestamp>1243705440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know how many people would like this... although I enjoy picking what my machine runs (such as when I install Fedora Core), most people don't know/care/aren't smart enough.  The MS PC's are sold at Best Buy and Walmart to anyone who wants to get on Facebook, people that don't have time to go through a configuration.  If this were to happen, I'd be happy, but many would complain.  On the plus side, I could start a business where I configure that stuff for people...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know how many people would like this... although I enjoy picking what my machine runs ( such as when I install Fedora Core ) , most people do n't know/care/are n't smart enough .
The MS PC 's are sold at Best Buy and Walmart to anyone who wants to get on Facebook , people that do n't have time to go through a configuration .
If this were to happen , I 'd be happy , but many would complain .
On the plus side , I could start a business where I configure that stuff for people.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know how many people would like this... although I enjoy picking what my machine runs (such as when I install Fedora Core), most people don't know/care/aren't smart enough.
The MS PC's are sold at Best Buy and Walmart to anyone who wants to get on Facebook, people that don't have time to go through a configuration.
If this were to happen, I'd be happy, but many would complain.
On the plus side, I could start a business where I configure that stuff for people...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28156719</id>
	<title>Only if you can convince HP, Dell ect...</title>
	<author>Sri.Theo</author>
	<datestamp>1243765140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really don't know how your comment can be considered insightful</p><p>1) This is just a proposal so its very hard to criticise right now, however many people have recommended similar plans.<br>2) The whole point is to remove MS form the equation, let Manufacturers decide what to install as they are not invested in the software business.<br>3) So your only real hope is to convince HP, Dell or whoever, that your browser creates some added value and therefore they will get more sales, Google, Mozilla and Opera are betting that they can win this argument. You have the right to do the same.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do n't know how your comment can be considered insightful1 ) This is just a proposal so its very hard to criticise right now , however many people have recommended similar plans.2 ) The whole point is to remove MS form the equation , let Manufacturers decide what to install as they are not invested in the software business.3 ) So your only real hope is to convince HP , Dell or whoever , that your browser creates some added value and therefore they will get more sales , Google , Mozilla and Opera are betting that they can win this argument .
You have the right to do the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really don't know how your comment can be considered insightful1) This is just a proposal so its very hard to criticise right now, however many people have recommended similar plans.2) The whole point is to remove MS form the equation, let Manufacturers decide what to install as they are not invested in the software business.3) So your only real hope is to convince HP, Dell or whoever, that your browser creates some added value and therefore they will get more sales, Google, Mozilla and Opera are betting that they can win this argument.
You have the right to do the same.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28165949</id>
	<title>Sorry, this is just stupid.</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1243857780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Car analogies are fun if used with some degree of wit</p><p>Car analogies are not always pertinent, this is such a case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Car analogies are fun if used with some degree of witCar analogies are not always pertinent , this is such a case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Car analogies are fun if used with some degree of witCar analogies are not always pertinent, this is such a case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152989</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153967</id>
	<title>Re:Bah Humbug</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243688760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You jest, but raise an important point.</p><p>Users (the majority of them) don't care. They see at startup - Microsoft Internet Explorer (recommended) and they choose it. Assuming some are bored enough to read down the list, they might see Firefox by Mozilla? Hmm... haven't used it before... Skip. Same for Opera. Same for Chrome.</p><p>Look, if people cared enough about their browser they would have already discovered Firefox. And Chrome. And Opera. Don't give me the bullshit that they haven't been informed they have a choice. If they don't know that, why on earth would they even bother to experiment, even if they are given a list of alternatives? Most users just want to get their job done with minimal fussing over details.</p><p>I know there are lots of choices for shampoo in the supermarket. I buy the same brand every time I need it. I didn't experiment with five different brands before choosing the one I liked best - though I'm sure some people have done that.</p><p>I agree that they should have the option to remove IE. That is great. So let the user choose. If they cannot choose (because they don't know about Firefox), they obviously don't care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You jest , but raise an important point.Users ( the majority of them ) do n't care .
They see at startup - Microsoft Internet Explorer ( recommended ) and they choose it .
Assuming some are bored enough to read down the list , they might see Firefox by Mozilla ?
Hmm... have n't used it before... Skip. Same for Opera .
Same for Chrome.Look , if people cared enough about their browser they would have already discovered Firefox .
And Chrome .
And Opera .
Do n't give me the bullshit that they have n't been informed they have a choice .
If they do n't know that , why on earth would they even bother to experiment , even if they are given a list of alternatives ?
Most users just want to get their job done with minimal fussing over details.I know there are lots of choices for shampoo in the supermarket .
I buy the same brand every time I need it .
I did n't experiment with five different brands before choosing the one I liked best - though I 'm sure some people have done that.I agree that they should have the option to remove IE .
That is great .
So let the user choose .
If they can not choose ( because they do n't know about Firefox ) , they obviously do n't care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You jest, but raise an important point.Users (the majority of them) don't care.
They see at startup - Microsoft Internet Explorer (recommended) and they choose it.
Assuming some are bored enough to read down the list, they might see Firefox by Mozilla?
Hmm... haven't used it before... Skip. Same for Opera.
Same for Chrome.Look, if people cared enough about their browser they would have already discovered Firefox.
And Chrome.
And Opera.
Don't give me the bullshit that they haven't been informed they have a choice.
If they don't know that, why on earth would they even bother to experiment, even if they are given a list of alternatives?
Most users just want to get their job done with minimal fussing over details.I know there are lots of choices for shampoo in the supermarket.
I buy the same brand every time I need it.
I didn't experiment with five different brands before choosing the one I liked best - though I'm sure some people have done that.I agree that they should have the option to remove IE.
That is great.
So let the user choose.
If they cannot choose (because they don't know about Firefox), they obviously don't care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152309</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152731</id>
	<title>Hey</title>
	<author>trifish</author>
	<datestamp>1243680120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if I make a spyware-based browser with malicious components, will Microsoft be obliged to offer my browser to the users? Just because I compete with IE?</p><p>Yep, I'd be complaining to EU if they didn't include my browser. That would be discrimination and abuse of monopoly.</p><p>Can it get any more silly?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if I make a spyware-based browser with malicious components , will Microsoft be obliged to offer my browser to the users ?
Just because I compete with IE ? Yep , I 'd be complaining to EU if they did n't include my browser .
That would be discrimination and abuse of monopoly.Can it get any more silly ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if I make a spyware-based browser with malicious components, will Microsoft be obliged to offer my browser to the users?
Just because I compete with IE?Yep, I'd be complaining to EU if they didn't include my browser.
That would be discrimination and abuse of monopoly.Can it get any more silly?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28166093</id>
	<title>Re:They'll cock it up</title>
	<author>hkmwbz</author>
	<datestamp>1243859700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>All that needs to be done is make IE8 removable.</p></div></blockquote><p>
No, that would not help at all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All that needs to be done is make IE8 removable .
No , that would not help at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All that needs to be done is make IE8 removable.
No, that would not help at all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28155551</id>
	<title>Re:They'll cock it up</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1243704660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Why bother fucking about with some sort of software that asks the user?"</p><p>Maybe you have found the REAL important part of this discussion.  IMHO, if the user can't be bothered with selecting some options, he probably shouldn't HAVE a computer.  He CERTAINLY SHOULD NOT be installing an operating system.</p><p>That said - what is it that makes *nis so secure?  Most of us who use *nix feel that it has a superior security model to anything Microsoft has ever created.  That might be argued - a lot of MS fanbois do argue it. So, I won't dwell on the security model.</p><p>What is *nix's second line of defense?  Choice.  Nothing major, just choice.  No, I'm not crazy, at all.   When the machine was set up, Root had several choices of distros.  Next, he had several choices of kernels within those distros.  Next, he chooses a desktop - CLI or GUI.  If he wants a CLI, he can choose between - what? about 6 major ones?  If he chooses a GUI, he has the two well known big ones, as well as some lesser known ones.</p><p>Okay - you want to hack into a Linux box.  Which exploits are you going to use?  How do you even identify his kernel, to get started?  See, with Windows, all you need is a user agent obtained through some script or other.  If it's W2k you have an entire range of hacks publicized for W2K.  If it's WinXP, ditto.  Granted, SP3 is patched a lot better than the original XP - but even so, it's the same kernel.  What do you get from a user agent string on *nix?  Well, you could assume that if I'm using Konqueror, I have a K desktop environment - and be wrong.  So, I ask you - how do you begin to determine which exploits to use against me?  How many hours are you willing to invest, just to get the data needed to make intelligent decisions about cracking my box?</p><p>Windows really needs choice.  Jerking Trident out of the OS will make a boatload of exploits disappear.  Getting rid of and/or disabling explorer.exe will make another boatload of exploits disappear.  Getting rid of that most worthless app of all, Outlook Express will make yet another boatload of exploits vanish.</p><p>Each and every choice that the user makes eliminates one set of exploits, and possibly opens a different set of exploits.  Every choice the user makes is a stab at the unhealthy monoculture that invites such widespread exploitation.</p><p>Give the users a thousand choices - and the end result will be tens, or even hundreds of thousands of new configurations, which are NOT all subject to the same exploits.</p><p>Make the damned crackers work for their ill-gained profits, huh?  Let's stop making it so easy for them to steal people's money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Why bother fucking about with some sort of software that asks the user ?
" Maybe you have found the REAL important part of this discussion .
IMHO , if the user ca n't be bothered with selecting some options , he probably should n't HAVE a computer .
He CERTAINLY SHOULD NOT be installing an operating system.That said - what is it that makes * nis so secure ?
Most of us who use * nix feel that it has a superior security model to anything Microsoft has ever created .
That might be argued - a lot of MS fanbois do argue it .
So , I wo n't dwell on the security model.What is * nix 's second line of defense ?
Choice. Nothing major , just choice .
No , I 'm not crazy , at all .
When the machine was set up , Root had several choices of distros .
Next , he had several choices of kernels within those distros .
Next , he chooses a desktop - CLI or GUI .
If he wants a CLI , he can choose between - what ?
about 6 major ones ?
If he chooses a GUI , he has the two well known big ones , as well as some lesser known ones.Okay - you want to hack into a Linux box .
Which exploits are you going to use ?
How do you even identify his kernel , to get started ?
See , with Windows , all you need is a user agent obtained through some script or other .
If it 's W2k you have an entire range of hacks publicized for W2K .
If it 's WinXP , ditto .
Granted , SP3 is patched a lot better than the original XP - but even so , it 's the same kernel .
What do you get from a user agent string on * nix ?
Well , you could assume that if I 'm using Konqueror , I have a K desktop environment - and be wrong .
So , I ask you - how do you begin to determine which exploits to use against me ?
How many hours are you willing to invest , just to get the data needed to make intelligent decisions about cracking my box ? Windows really needs choice .
Jerking Trident out of the OS will make a boatload of exploits disappear .
Getting rid of and/or disabling explorer.exe will make another boatload of exploits disappear .
Getting rid of that most worthless app of all , Outlook Express will make yet another boatload of exploits vanish.Each and every choice that the user makes eliminates one set of exploits , and possibly opens a different set of exploits .
Every choice the user makes is a stab at the unhealthy monoculture that invites such widespread exploitation.Give the users a thousand choices - and the end result will be tens , or even hundreds of thousands of new configurations , which are NOT all subject to the same exploits.Make the damned crackers work for their ill-gained profits , huh ?
Let 's stop making it so easy for them to steal people 's money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Why bother fucking about with some sort of software that asks the user?
"Maybe you have found the REAL important part of this discussion.
IMHO, if the user can't be bothered with selecting some options, he probably shouldn't HAVE a computer.
He CERTAINLY SHOULD NOT be installing an operating system.That said - what is it that makes *nis so secure?
Most of us who use *nix feel that it has a superior security model to anything Microsoft has ever created.
That might be argued - a lot of MS fanbois do argue it.
So, I won't dwell on the security model.What is *nix's second line of defense?
Choice.  Nothing major, just choice.
No, I'm not crazy, at all.
When the machine was set up, Root had several choices of distros.
Next, he had several choices of kernels within those distros.
Next, he chooses a desktop - CLI or GUI.
If he wants a CLI, he can choose between - what?
about 6 major ones?
If he chooses a GUI, he has the two well known big ones, as well as some lesser known ones.Okay - you want to hack into a Linux box.
Which exploits are you going to use?
How do you even identify his kernel, to get started?
See, with Windows, all you need is a user agent obtained through some script or other.
If it's W2k you have an entire range of hacks publicized for W2K.
If it's WinXP, ditto.
Granted, SP3 is patched a lot better than the original XP - but even so, it's the same kernel.
What do you get from a user agent string on *nix?
Well, you could assume that if I'm using Konqueror, I have a K desktop environment - and be wrong.
So, I ask you - how do you begin to determine which exploits to use against me?
How many hours are you willing to invest, just to get the data needed to make intelligent decisions about cracking my box?Windows really needs choice.
Jerking Trident out of the OS will make a boatload of exploits disappear.
Getting rid of and/or disabling explorer.exe will make another boatload of exploits disappear.
Getting rid of that most worthless app of all, Outlook Express will make yet another boatload of exploits vanish.Each and every choice that the user makes eliminates one set of exploits, and possibly opens a different set of exploits.
Every choice the user makes is a stab at the unhealthy monoculture that invites such widespread exploitation.Give the users a thousand choices - and the end result will be tens, or even hundreds of thousands of new configurations, which are NOT all subject to the same exploits.Make the damned crackers work for their ill-gained profits, huh?
Let's stop making it so easy for them to steal people's money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28160619</id>
	<title>MS dropped IE for Mac OS X</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243803420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why?</p><p>Because they said (MS) that they could NOT compete with a browser that came with the OS.</p><p>Do you think they were lying? If so, why?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ? Because they said ( MS ) that they could NOT compete with a browser that came with the OS.Do you think they were lying ?
If so , why ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why?Because they said (MS) that they could NOT compete with a browser that came with the OS.Do you think they were lying?
If so, why?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28166047</id>
	<title>The blind trying to lead.</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1243859040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For somebody deriding others about their short memories, I have to say yours is pretty selective, to say the least.</p><p>Netscape may have sucked, I think that is now firmly established,  but that is not the reason they collapsed so spectacularly.</p><p>The reason was that Microsoft used their controlling position in the operating system market in order to try to corner the Internet by means of their browser.</p><p>Unlike your amnesiac account of facts, I remember when Bill Gates wrote "The Road Ahead", its "visionary" book in which the Internet was hardly mentioned, if at all. This was 1995, when the Internet was firmly established as a medium to be reckoned with.</p><p>Once Gates &amp; Co realized their short sightedness they refocused the company to the Internet, so they found themselves all of the sudden needing to refocus on the internet but without any control of the main application used to access it: the web browser.</p><p>So they did what many monopolists have done before: dumping. They subsidized IE in order to put Netscape out of business. The fact that Netscape sucked made it easier for Microsoft to succeed, but that does not excuse them of their responsibility of abuse of their monopolistic position.</p><p>Part 2 of their master plan was to get hold of the infrastructure. They really believed  that the MSN (MS Network!) would beat the Internet, but understandably the administrators behind all those relatively new websites stuck with open, free standards instead of allowing the famous MS embrace to take place.</p><p>That is what is being punished. It may not be a timely punishment, but at least is something that may have some teeth ( we are still accessing the Internet using web browsers, unless you guys are using gopher or FTP), so I fail to see how this is not a useful measure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For somebody deriding others about their short memories , I have to say yours is pretty selective , to say the least.Netscape may have sucked , I think that is now firmly established , but that is not the reason they collapsed so spectacularly.The reason was that Microsoft used their controlling position in the operating system market in order to try to corner the Internet by means of their browser.Unlike your amnesiac account of facts , I remember when Bill Gates wrote " The Road Ahead " , its " visionary " book in which the Internet was hardly mentioned , if at all .
This was 1995 , when the Internet was firmly established as a medium to be reckoned with.Once Gates &amp; Co realized their short sightedness they refocused the company to the Internet , so they found themselves all of the sudden needing to refocus on the internet but without any control of the main application used to access it : the web browser.So they did what many monopolists have done before : dumping .
They subsidized IE in order to put Netscape out of business .
The fact that Netscape sucked made it easier for Microsoft to succeed , but that does not excuse them of their responsibility of abuse of their monopolistic position.Part 2 of their master plan was to get hold of the infrastructure .
They really believed that the MSN ( MS Network !
) would beat the Internet , but understandably the administrators behind all those relatively new websites stuck with open , free standards instead of allowing the famous MS embrace to take place.That is what is being punished .
It may not be a timely punishment , but at least is something that may have some teeth ( we are still accessing the Internet using web browsers , unless you guys are using gopher or FTP ) , so I fail to see how this is not a useful measure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For somebody deriding others about their short memories, I have to say yours is pretty selective, to say the least.Netscape may have sucked, I think that is now firmly established,  but that is not the reason they collapsed so spectacularly.The reason was that Microsoft used their controlling position in the operating system market in order to try to corner the Internet by means of their browser.Unlike your amnesiac account of facts, I remember when Bill Gates wrote "The Road Ahead", its "visionary" book in which the Internet was hardly mentioned, if at all.
This was 1995, when the Internet was firmly established as a medium to be reckoned with.Once Gates &amp; Co realized their short sightedness they refocused the company to the Internet, so they found themselves all of the sudden needing to refocus on the internet but without any control of the main application used to access it: the web browser.So they did what many monopolists have done before: dumping.
They subsidized IE in order to put Netscape out of business.
The fact that Netscape sucked made it easier for Microsoft to succeed, but that does not excuse them of their responsibility of abuse of their monopolistic position.Part 2 of their master plan was to get hold of the infrastructure.
They really believed  that the MSN (MS Network!
) would beat the Internet, but understandably the administrators behind all those relatively new websites stuck with open, free standards instead of allowing the famous MS embrace to take place.That is what is being punished.
It may not be a timely punishment, but at least is something that may have some teeth ( we are still accessing the Internet using web browsers, unless you guys are using gopher or FTP), so I fail to see how this is not a useful measure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152663</id>
	<title>Proper tabloid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243679700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Timothy, please next time consider the difference between the verb used in the title (EU <b>Wants</b> Multiple Browser Bundling On New PCs) and in TF summary (the EU is <b>considering</b> forcing Windows users to choose).</p><p>We don't need you to be a professional editor (even though you probably are paid for the job), but please just try not to work like a moron from a random tabloid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Timothy , please next time consider the difference between the verb used in the title ( EU Wants Multiple Browser Bundling On New PCs ) and in TF summary ( the EU is considering forcing Windows users to choose ) .We do n't need you to be a professional editor ( even though you probably are paid for the job ) , but please just try not to work like a moron from a random tabloid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Timothy, please next time consider the difference between the verb used in the title (EU Wants Multiple Browser Bundling On New PCs) and in TF summary (the EU is considering forcing Windows users to choose).We don't need you to be a professional editor (even though you probably are paid for the job), but please just try not to work like a moron from a random tabloid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28156975</id>
	<title>Microsoft PR engine targets Slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243768980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The subject line says it all. The amount of pro MS nonsense and PR spin directed against the EU court judgement, and similar issues is increasing on Slashdot, while the amount of reasoned argument is in decline (no, I'm not new here).</p><p>It is of course a perfect platform for them because of the high percentage of Linux users which can be found here.</p><p>In the long term it won't work because it will just antagonise people who are capable for thinking for themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The subject line says it all .
The amount of pro MS nonsense and PR spin directed against the EU court judgement , and similar issues is increasing on Slashdot , while the amount of reasoned argument is in decline ( no , I 'm not new here ) .It is of course a perfect platform for them because of the high percentage of Linux users which can be found here.In the long term it wo n't work because it will just antagonise people who are capable for thinking for themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The subject line says it all.
The amount of pro MS nonsense and PR spin directed against the EU court judgement, and similar issues is increasing on Slashdot, while the amount of reasoned argument is in decline (no, I'm not new here).It is of course a perfect platform for them because of the high percentage of Linux users which can be found here.In the long term it won't work because it will just antagonise people who are capable for thinking for themselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153485</id>
	<title>Good?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243685340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm really, really, really, REALLY confused about why Slashdotters hate this idea so much. When people install Windows, they'll be asked which browser they want to use. What could be better than that? How did tortured objections like "but then they'll have to include Lynx Spyware Edition!" become so popular?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm really , really , really , REALLY confused about why Slashdotters hate this idea so much .
When people install Windows , they 'll be asked which browser they want to use .
What could be better than that ?
How did tortured objections like " but then they 'll have to include Lynx Spyware Edition !
" become so popular ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm really, really, really, REALLY confused about why Slashdotters hate this idea so much.
When people install Windows, they'll be asked which browser they want to use.
What could be better than that?
How did tortured objections like "but then they'll have to include Lynx Spyware Edition!
" become so popular?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28154873</id>
	<title>Re:Read much?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243697640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, that's not what I said. Nice try though. I said that they could only support internet explorer if the wanted to.<br>This implies that what they did was not as bad, as they "could" do worse. They "could" support only IE.<br>As much as I hate Microsoft and Internet explorer, MS should not be required to make other options available, as they are available to anyone who would actually notice the difference-what's more, they are available through IE itself.</p><p>Me, illiterate? Mmhhm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , that 's not what I said .
Nice try though .
I said that they could only support internet explorer if the wanted to.This implies that what they did was not as bad , as they " could " do worse .
They " could " support only IE.As much as I hate Microsoft and Internet explorer , MS should not be required to make other options available , as they are available to anyone who would actually notice the difference-what 's more , they are available through IE itself.Me , illiterate ?
Mmhhm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, that's not what I said.
Nice try though.
I said that they could only support internet explorer if the wanted to.This implies that what they did was not as bad, as they "could" do worse.
They "could" support only IE.As much as I hate Microsoft and Internet explorer, MS should not be required to make other options available, as they are available to anyone who would actually notice the difference-what's more, they are available through IE itself.Me, illiterate?
Mmhhm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152895</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153193</id>
	<title>Re:For fuck's sake...</title>
	<author>rtfa-troll</author>
	<datestamp>1243683240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When Microsoft first included IE, it was nothing like basic functionality.  Furthermore, MS internal discussions which you can read in the relevant court cases make it clear that they didn't believe it was basic functionality either.  If they had believed that then their actions would not have been illegal.  They included IE specifically in order to destroy Netscape.   That is what made it illegal / evil and unpleasant.  In the same way as a doctor giving you morphine to relieve pain is not illegal whilst the same doctor giving you a morphine overdose to murder you is.  It's not just what you do; it's why you do it and how you do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When Microsoft first included IE , it was nothing like basic functionality .
Furthermore , MS internal discussions which you can read in the relevant court cases make it clear that they did n't believe it was basic functionality either .
If they had believed that then their actions would not have been illegal .
They included IE specifically in order to destroy Netscape .
That is what made it illegal / evil and unpleasant .
In the same way as a doctor giving you morphine to relieve pain is not illegal whilst the same doctor giving you a morphine overdose to murder you is .
It 's not just what you do ; it 's why you do it and how you do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When Microsoft first included IE, it was nothing like basic functionality.
Furthermore, MS internal discussions which you can read in the relevant court cases make it clear that they didn't believe it was basic functionality either.
If they had believed that then their actions would not have been illegal.
They included IE specifically in order to destroy Netscape.
That is what made it illegal / evil and unpleasant.
In the same way as a doctor giving you morphine to relieve pain is not illegal whilst the same doctor giving you a morphine overdose to murder you is.
It's not just what you do; it's why you do it and how you do it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152683</id>
	<title>Dumbasses didn't read Milton Friedman . . .</title>
	<author>PolygamousRanchKid </author>
	<datestamp>1243679820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> . . . forcing Windows users to choose . . . </p></div><p>How about saying, or believing, "Free to Choose" . . . ?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>.
. .
forcing Windows users to choose .
. .
How about saying , or believing , " Free to Choose " .
. .
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> .
. .
forcing Windows users to choose .
. .
How about saying, or believing, "Free to Choose" .
. .
?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153031</id>
	<title>Re:F***ing stupid beyond belief</title>
	<author>JAlexoi</author>
	<datestamp>1243682040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But the most popular would be at the top. Like Firefox, Opera, Safari and Chrome.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But the most popular would be at the top .
Like Firefox , Opera , Safari and Chrome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the most popular would be at the top.
Like Firefox, Opera, Safari and Chrome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152815</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28156731</id>
	<title>No, you can't get more silly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243765260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Goodness knows why anyone would tag your comment insightful.</p><p>Nobody is suggesting that your browser should be included with MS.</p><p>Read the article again and try to understand what it says. If it isn't your first language, get someone to help you. Make sure you're sobered up first though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Goodness knows why anyone would tag your comment insightful.Nobody is suggesting that your browser should be included with MS.Read the article again and try to understand what it says .
If it is n't your first language , get someone to help you .
Make sure you 're sobered up first though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Goodness knows why anyone would tag your comment insightful.Nobody is suggesting that your browser should be included with MS.Read the article again and try to understand what it says.
If it isn't your first language, get someone to help you.
Make sure you're sobered up first though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152591</id>
	<title>Re:They'll cock it up</title>
	<author>Thinboy00</author>
	<datestamp>1243679220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Win7 lets you remove iexplore.exe but not Trident's libraries (the rendering engine).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Win7 lets you remove iexplore.exe but not Trident 's libraries ( the rendering engine ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Win7 lets you remove iexplore.exe but not Trident's libraries (the rendering engine).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28156915</id>
	<title>Re:Forcing OEMs?</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1243768200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The solution with "allow" won't work, because it's wide open to abuse: MS offers a sweet deal to OEM, and so OEM "decides" they don't really need to bundle anything besides IE.</p><p>You cannot compare a web browser to the other crappy apps that are usually bundled with Windows by OEMs. A browser is becoming an operating system all in itself, and it's the window into the world, for the new generations. You bet your ass that Microsoft is going to fight for IE to be the only browser in town.</p><p>That's why simply allowing OEMs to bundle other browsers is not going to work, while forcing them (so they don't have any excuse to drop the non-IE browsers) has a chance to achieve something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The solution with " allow " wo n't work , because it 's wide open to abuse : MS offers a sweet deal to OEM , and so OEM " decides " they do n't really need to bundle anything besides IE.You can not compare a web browser to the other crappy apps that are usually bundled with Windows by OEMs .
A browser is becoming an operating system all in itself , and it 's the window into the world , for the new generations .
You bet your ass that Microsoft is going to fight for IE to be the only browser in town.That 's why simply allowing OEMs to bundle other browsers is not going to work , while forcing them ( so they do n't have any excuse to drop the non-IE browsers ) has a chance to achieve something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The solution with "allow" won't work, because it's wide open to abuse: MS offers a sweet deal to OEM, and so OEM "decides" they don't really need to bundle anything besides IE.You cannot compare a web browser to the other crappy apps that are usually bundled with Windows by OEMs.
A browser is becoming an operating system all in itself, and it's the window into the world, for the new generations.
You bet your ass that Microsoft is going to fight for IE to be the only browser in town.That's why simply allowing OEMs to bundle other browsers is not going to work, while forcing them (so they don't have any excuse to drop the non-IE browsers) has a chance to achieve something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152967</id>
	<title>Re:No fan of MS, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243681680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would the same rules apply to Apple as well?</p><p>Safari is seemingly bundled with MacOSX.</p><p><i>Note: I've never purchased a Mac, but I would assume Apple bundles the Safari browser in the systems they ship. If otherwise, please correct me.</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would the same rules apply to Apple as well ? Safari is seemingly bundled with MacOSX.Note : I 've never purchased a Mac , but I would assume Apple bundles the Safari browser in the systems they ship .
If otherwise , please correct me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would the same rules apply to Apple as well?Safari is seemingly bundled with MacOSX.Note: I've never purchased a Mac, but I would assume Apple bundles the Safari browser in the systems they ship.
If otherwise, please correct me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28157029</id>
	<title>Re:Hm.</title>
	<author>smoker2</author>
	<datestamp>1243769820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>That's not really bundling now, is it? How do they server(sic) this list to the user? Must be a webpage, Shirley?</p></div></blockquote><p>It is a bundle of options.<br>Anonymous FTP ? FTP is included in Windows installs. And if you're using a GUI then you can run commands based on responses from a graphical form. Why are you trying to make this seem difficult ?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not really bundling now , is it ?
How do they server ( sic ) this list to the user ?
Must be a webpage , Shirley ? It is a bundle of options.Anonymous FTP ?
FTP is included in Windows installs .
And if you 're using a GUI then you can run commands based on responses from a graphical form .
Why are you trying to make this seem difficult ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not really bundling now, is it?
How do they server(sic) this list to the user?
Must be a webpage, Shirley?It is a bundle of options.Anonymous FTP ?
FTP is included in Windows installs.
And if you're using a GUI then you can run commands based on responses from a graphical form.
Why are you trying to make this seem difficult ?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152443</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28154171</id>
	<title>Uh...</title>
	<author>Stormy Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1243690320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How exactly is the user going to be able to select and download a browser if there's not a default browser already installed on the computer?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How exactly is the user going to be able to select and download a browser if there 's not a default browser already installed on the computer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How exactly is the user going to be able to select and download a browser if there's not a default browser already installed on the computer?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153055</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't solve the real problem</title>
	<author>Warlord88</author>
	<datestamp>1243682220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought the real problem was about antitrust regulations rather than "complete removal" of IE.
Anyways, according to a comment above [http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1250947&amp;cid=28152855], its not possible to remove IE completely.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought the real problem was about antitrust regulations rather than " complete removal " of IE .
Anyways , according to a comment above [ http : //yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1250947&amp;cid = 28152855 ] , its not possible to remove IE completely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought the real problem was about antitrust regulations rather than "complete removal" of IE.
Anyways, according to a comment above [http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1250947&amp;cid=28152855], its not possible to remove IE completely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152907</id>
	<title>Doesn't solve the real problem</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1243681380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real problem isn't the IE shell, it's the Microsoft HTML control, and even if you quote-remove-IE-unquote all that removes is the shell.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real problem is n't the IE shell , it 's the Microsoft HTML control , and even if you quote-remove-IE-unquote all that removes is the shell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real problem isn't the IE shell, it's the Microsoft HTML control, and even if you quote-remove-IE-unquote all that removes is the shell.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28157081</id>
	<title>Re:Hey</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243770720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yep, I'd be complaining to EU if they didn't include my browser. That would be discrimination and abuse of monopoly.</p></div><p>Yes, and the EU would, of course, have no choice but to force Microsoft to offer your brower, too. "Oh no!", they would say, "this browser is full of spyware! But since it's a competing product, we have no choice but to force Microsoft to offer it."</p><p>Right?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Can it get any more silly?</p></div><p>Indeed, can it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , I 'd be complaining to EU if they did n't include my browser .
That would be discrimination and abuse of monopoly.Yes , and the EU would , of course , have no choice but to force Microsoft to offer your brower , too .
" Oh no !
" , they would say , " this browser is full of spyware !
But since it 's a competing product , we have no choice but to force Microsoft to offer it .
" Right ? Can it get any more silly ? Indeed , can it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, I'd be complaining to EU if they didn't include my browser.
That would be discrimination and abuse of monopoly.Yes, and the EU would, of course, have no choice but to force Microsoft to offer your brower, too.
"Oh no!
", they would say, "this browser is full of spyware!
But since it's a competing product, we have no choice but to force Microsoft to offer it.
"Right?Can it get any more silly?Indeed, can it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153525</id>
	<title>A quick history</title>
	<author>Twillerror</author>
	<datestamp>1243685580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I swear IT folks have shorter memories than even the average American retard.</p><p>When IE came to dominance it came because Netscape came to pure suckiness. Does anyone here acutally remember using Netscape? My god it was horrible.</p><p>Hell netscape wanted to use layers. LAYERS!!!! over divs. Everyone got their panties in a bundle because MS introduced IFRAMES...some thing badly needed and DIVs still need a SRC attribute if you ask me.</p><p>Firefox 2 and up is great. But that was only a few years back. IE has to deal with a whole era of legacy that Firefox does not. MS should be yelled at for ActiveX, but in reality the problem is with HTML. Many Intranet apps used by call centers and the like really didn't work all the great in HTML 3.2...even 4 when it first came out. Hell AJAX is just now getting somewhat stable...if you want to call it that. Libraries like JQuery and Prototype have turned a piece of shit lanaguage like Javascript into a usable one...a real language wouldn't need a library just be useable.</p><p>Web "standards" are treated as some sort of god ordaned thing. Or even worse like stanards such as TCP/IPv4. IPv4 and TCP are incredibly simple compared to HTML. HTTP 1.0 and 1.1 are similiar in complexity, but HTML is like an entire GUI API. Add CSS in there and my god what a mess.</p><p>I've been developing since I was 12 (30 now) and I honestly have no desire to anymore with this hunk of shit we call the web stack. Even this sight slashdot is going to hell as more and more DHTML comes into play. At work it looks entirely different. I surf in IE, Firefox, and Chrome at home. At work I'm stuck on IE 7. I see differences in all three and worse I see Javascript just randomly breaking. As most of us have seen one bad line of JS and all the JS stops(ever had Google analytics fail?)...so the page then renders wrong...or won't submit because every anchor in slashdot has an onclick handler..I'm guessing added by some JQuery like piece of code that scours the page for them. DOM tranversing is incredibly buggy in all browser and even between releases. I have had tried and ture Prototype library code just not work on some form in Firefox...then pull it up in IE and bam.</p><p>JS performance has gotten way better with Firefox and Chrome. And developers are taking advantage of the finally optmized versions. Why the hell was it so slow in the first place huh? And of course I'm already seeing Firefox and IE just "hangin" while a JS happily loops over huge sections of the ever increasinly bloated DOM. Talk about bloatware...the DOM is getting out of control.</p><p>Hulu is now releasing a full desktop app, eBay put out an AIR app, iTunes is a desktop app. Flex and Silverlight will have some limited footprint. The vast majority will be newspaper sights where the HTML is just lots of formatted text. Intranet apps will likely be Flex and Silverlight or heavy Ajax stuff with one browser still being "recommend over another". Chrome is already putting out example that just run in it.</p><p>At the end of the day I think we are moving away from the browser. This is a just a futile effort by the EU. They just want to punish IE...maybe a few want to help the end users...but if that was the case they'd invest money in Ubuntu and bring it the rest of the way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I swear IT folks have shorter memories than even the average American retard.When IE came to dominance it came because Netscape came to pure suckiness .
Does anyone here acutally remember using Netscape ?
My god it was horrible.Hell netscape wanted to use layers .
LAYERS ! ! ! ! over divs .
Everyone got their panties in a bundle because MS introduced IFRAMES...some thing badly needed and DIVs still need a SRC attribute if you ask me.Firefox 2 and up is great .
But that was only a few years back .
IE has to deal with a whole era of legacy that Firefox does not .
MS should be yelled at for ActiveX , but in reality the problem is with HTML .
Many Intranet apps used by call centers and the like really did n't work all the great in HTML 3.2...even 4 when it first came out .
Hell AJAX is just now getting somewhat stable...if you want to call it that .
Libraries like JQuery and Prototype have turned a piece of shit lanaguage like Javascript into a usable one...a real language would n't need a library just be useable.Web " standards " are treated as some sort of god ordaned thing .
Or even worse like stanards such as TCP/IPv4 .
IPv4 and TCP are incredibly simple compared to HTML .
HTTP 1.0 and 1.1 are similiar in complexity , but HTML is like an entire GUI API .
Add CSS in there and my god what a mess.I 've been developing since I was 12 ( 30 now ) and I honestly have no desire to anymore with this hunk of shit we call the web stack .
Even this sight slashdot is going to hell as more and more DHTML comes into play .
At work it looks entirely different .
I surf in IE , Firefox , and Chrome at home .
At work I 'm stuck on IE 7 .
I see differences in all three and worse I see Javascript just randomly breaking .
As most of us have seen one bad line of JS and all the JS stops ( ever had Google analytics fail ?
) ...so the page then renders wrong...or wo n't submit because every anchor in slashdot has an onclick handler..I 'm guessing added by some JQuery like piece of code that scours the page for them .
DOM tranversing is incredibly buggy in all browser and even between releases .
I have had tried and ture Prototype library code just not work on some form in Firefox...then pull it up in IE and bam.JS performance has gotten way better with Firefox and Chrome .
And developers are taking advantage of the finally optmized versions .
Why the hell was it so slow in the first place huh ?
And of course I 'm already seeing Firefox and IE just " hangin " while a JS happily loops over huge sections of the ever increasinly bloated DOM .
Talk about bloatware...the DOM is getting out of control.Hulu is now releasing a full desktop app , eBay put out an AIR app , iTunes is a desktop app .
Flex and Silverlight will have some limited footprint .
The vast majority will be newspaper sights where the HTML is just lots of formatted text .
Intranet apps will likely be Flex and Silverlight or heavy Ajax stuff with one browser still being " recommend over another " .
Chrome is already putting out example that just run in it.At the end of the day I think we are moving away from the browser .
This is a just a futile effort by the EU .
They just want to punish IE...maybe a few want to help the end users...but if that was the case they 'd invest money in Ubuntu and bring it the rest of the way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I swear IT folks have shorter memories than even the average American retard.When IE came to dominance it came because Netscape came to pure suckiness.
Does anyone here acutally remember using Netscape?
My god it was horrible.Hell netscape wanted to use layers.
LAYERS!!!! over divs.
Everyone got their panties in a bundle because MS introduced IFRAMES...some thing badly needed and DIVs still need a SRC attribute if you ask me.Firefox 2 and up is great.
But that was only a few years back.
IE has to deal with a whole era of legacy that Firefox does not.
MS should be yelled at for ActiveX, but in reality the problem is with HTML.
Many Intranet apps used by call centers and the like really didn't work all the great in HTML 3.2...even 4 when it first came out.
Hell AJAX is just now getting somewhat stable...if you want to call it that.
Libraries like JQuery and Prototype have turned a piece of shit lanaguage like Javascript into a usable one...a real language wouldn't need a library just be useable.Web "standards" are treated as some sort of god ordaned thing.
Or even worse like stanards such as TCP/IPv4.
IPv4 and TCP are incredibly simple compared to HTML.
HTTP 1.0 and 1.1 are similiar in complexity, but HTML is like an entire GUI API.
Add CSS in there and my god what a mess.I've been developing since I was 12 (30 now) and I honestly have no desire to anymore with this hunk of shit we call the web stack.
Even this sight slashdot is going to hell as more and more DHTML comes into play.
At work it looks entirely different.
I surf in IE, Firefox, and Chrome at home.
At work I'm stuck on IE 7.
I see differences in all three and worse I see Javascript just randomly breaking.
As most of us have seen one bad line of JS and all the JS stops(ever had Google analytics fail?
)...so the page then renders wrong...or won't submit because every anchor in slashdot has an onclick handler..I'm guessing added by some JQuery like piece of code that scours the page for them.
DOM tranversing is incredibly buggy in all browser and even between releases.
I have had tried and ture Prototype library code just not work on some form in Firefox...then pull it up in IE and bam.JS performance has gotten way better with Firefox and Chrome.
And developers are taking advantage of the finally optmized versions.
Why the hell was it so slow in the first place huh?
And of course I'm already seeing Firefox and IE just "hangin" while a JS happily loops over huge sections of the ever increasinly bloated DOM.
Talk about bloatware...the DOM is getting out of control.Hulu is now releasing a full desktop app, eBay put out an AIR app, iTunes is a desktop app.
Flex and Silverlight will have some limited footprint.
The vast majority will be newspaper sights where the HTML is just lots of formatted text.
Intranet apps will likely be Flex and Silverlight or heavy Ajax stuff with one browser still being "recommend over another".
Chrome is already putting out example that just run in it.At the end of the day I think we are moving away from the browser.
This is a just a futile effort by the EU.
They just want to punish IE...maybe a few want to help the end users...but if that was the case they'd invest money in Ubuntu and bring it the rest of the way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28185005</id>
	<title>Re:For fuck's sake...</title>
	<author>Lord Bitman</author>
	<datestamp>1243968300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The browser<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/was/ basic functionality at the time. Microsoft saw this, and decided to integrate it. When you are using IE as a help browser, the end user just sees it as a help browser, and doesn't care if the back-end is a bunch of hypertext. A help browser is basic functionality. Hypertext is a basic part of any GUI, and has been at least since the invention of the mouse, if you recall the patent flames about hyperlinks.</p><p>People got mad because Microsoft didn't provide an easy way to break one's computer. They made a web browser, allowed it to be used as part of the regular shell, then removed the redundancy and confusion which would have been caused by having two of the same thing, meaning the whole lot was required for the system to run. Who cares, right? It's free anyway, and you can still use other web browsers the same way you always could, doesn't get in anyone's way.</p><p>Then an evil company which decided it didn't want someone else edging in on their monopoly said "How dare they! They've made their product more convenient than we possibly could! That's not fair!"</p><p>Well, maybe it's not fair, but it's not "unfair competition". Microsoft has done plenty of "unfair competition"- like writing into contracts that hardware manufacturers need to charge for Windows even if it isn't installed, or that they're required to install Windows on every PC they ship, or they get no Windows to install on any PC they ship.<br>- But including a crappy web-browser / file browser was NOT anti-competitive.</p><p>I'd bring up how RealNetworks tried to force Microsoft to include their product with windows when nobody bought it in the first place (Nobody's buying our piece of shit? Inconceivable! It must be because of an evil monopoly!), but a lot of people don't see the obviousness of "not selling your competitor's product for them" not being the same as "forcing your competitor out of business".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The browser /was/ basic functionality at the time .
Microsoft saw this , and decided to integrate it .
When you are using IE as a help browser , the end user just sees it as a help browser , and does n't care if the back-end is a bunch of hypertext .
A help browser is basic functionality .
Hypertext is a basic part of any GUI , and has been at least since the invention of the mouse , if you recall the patent flames about hyperlinks.People got mad because Microsoft did n't provide an easy way to break one 's computer .
They made a web browser , allowed it to be used as part of the regular shell , then removed the redundancy and confusion which would have been caused by having two of the same thing , meaning the whole lot was required for the system to run .
Who cares , right ?
It 's free anyway , and you can still use other web browsers the same way you always could , does n't get in anyone 's way.Then an evil company which decided it did n't want someone else edging in on their monopoly said " How dare they !
They 've made their product more convenient than we possibly could !
That 's not fair !
" Well , maybe it 's not fair , but it 's not " unfair competition " .
Microsoft has done plenty of " unfair competition " - like writing into contracts that hardware manufacturers need to charge for Windows even if it is n't installed , or that they 're required to install Windows on every PC they ship , or they get no Windows to install on any PC they ship.- But including a crappy web-browser / file browser was NOT anti-competitive.I 'd bring up how RealNetworks tried to force Microsoft to include their product with windows when nobody bought it in the first place ( Nobody 's buying our piece of shit ?
Inconceivable ! It must be because of an evil monopoly !
) , but a lot of people do n't see the obviousness of " not selling your competitor 's product for them " not being the same as " forcing your competitor out of business " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The browser /was/ basic functionality at the time.
Microsoft saw this, and decided to integrate it.
When you are using IE as a help browser, the end user just sees it as a help browser, and doesn't care if the back-end is a bunch of hypertext.
A help browser is basic functionality.
Hypertext is a basic part of any GUI, and has been at least since the invention of the mouse, if you recall the patent flames about hyperlinks.People got mad because Microsoft didn't provide an easy way to break one's computer.
They made a web browser, allowed it to be used as part of the regular shell, then removed the redundancy and confusion which would have been caused by having two of the same thing, meaning the whole lot was required for the system to run.
Who cares, right?
It's free anyway, and you can still use other web browsers the same way you always could, doesn't get in anyone's way.Then an evil company which decided it didn't want someone else edging in on their monopoly said "How dare they!
They've made their product more convenient than we possibly could!
That's not fair!
"Well, maybe it's not fair, but it's not "unfair competition".
Microsoft has done plenty of "unfair competition"- like writing into contracts that hardware manufacturers need to charge for Windows even if it isn't installed, or that they're required to install Windows on every PC they ship, or they get no Windows to install on any PC they ship.- But including a crappy web-browser / file browser was NOT anti-competitive.I'd bring up how RealNetworks tried to force Microsoft to include their product with windows when nobody bought it in the first place (Nobody's buying our piece of shit?
Inconceivable! It must be because of an evil monopoly!
), but a lot of people don't see the obviousness of "not selling your competitor's product for them" not being the same as "forcing your competitor out of business".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153193</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152389</id>
	<title>Re:Forcing OEMs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243678140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft's rules do not disallow OEMs bundling browsers.</p><p>Believe it or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft 's rules do not disallow OEMs bundling browsers.Believe it or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft's rules do not disallow OEMs bundling browsers.Believe it or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152443</id>
	<title>Hm.</title>
	<author>goldaryn</author>
	<datestamp>1243678380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hang on a minute, browser bundling?<br>
<br>
<i>The EU would rather have a "ballot screen" for users to choose which browsers to download and install as well as which one to set as default</i> <br>
<br>
That's not really bundling now, is it? How do they server this list to the user? Must be a webpage, Shirley?<br>
<br>
Also.. who chooses which browsers are included in the list? M$? What's to stop M$ putting theirs at the top of the list? I like the idea but it needs more thinking through. I read TFA (yes, I'm new here, etc.) and it was very light on detail.<br>
<br>
I somehow sense this isn't the end of the matter..</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hang on a minute , browser bundling ?
The EU would rather have a " ballot screen " for users to choose which browsers to download and install as well as which one to set as default That 's not really bundling now , is it ?
How do they server this list to the user ?
Must be a webpage , Shirley ?
Also.. who chooses which browsers are included in the list ?
M $ ? What 's to stop M $ putting theirs at the top of the list ?
I like the idea but it needs more thinking through .
I read TFA ( yes , I 'm new here , etc .
) and it was very light on detail .
I somehow sense this is n't the end of the matter. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hang on a minute, browser bundling?
The EU would rather have a "ballot screen" for users to choose which browsers to download and install as well as which one to set as default 

That's not really bundling now, is it?
How do they server this list to the user?
Must be a webpage, Shirley?
Also.. who chooses which browsers are included in the list?
M$? What's to stop M$ putting theirs at the top of the list?
I like the idea but it needs more thinking through.
I read TFA (yes, I'm new here, etc.
) and it was very light on detail.
I somehow sense this isn't the end of the matter..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28156321</id>
	<title>Re:This is not fair</title>
	<author>weicco</author>
	<datestamp>1243800540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Quite simply put, the reason IE is popular is because people do not care about which browser they use. A small percentage does</p></div></blockquote><p>Well, I do care and I chose Internet Explorer. I've tried Firefox and Opera time and time again but they just doesn't feel right <b>for me</b>. IE6 was somewhat working browser but IE7 and now 8 are really good or at least good enough for me. This is, of course, subjective point of view but aren't them all. So why should I change? Rhetoric question...</p><p>And no, I don't work for Microsoft (in fact I don't work at all at the moment)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quite simply put , the reason IE is popular is because people do not care about which browser they use .
A small percentage doesWell , I do care and I chose Internet Explorer .
I 've tried Firefox and Opera time and time again but they just does n't feel right for me .
IE6 was somewhat working browser but IE7 and now 8 are really good or at least good enough for me .
This is , of course , subjective point of view but are n't them all .
So why should I change ?
Rhetoric question...And no , I do n't work for Microsoft ( in fact I do n't work at all at the moment ) ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quite simply put, the reason IE is popular is because people do not care about which browser they use.
A small percentage doesWell, I do care and I chose Internet Explorer.
I've tried Firefox and Opera time and time again but they just doesn't feel right for me.
IE6 was somewhat working browser but IE7 and now 8 are really good or at least good enough for me.
This is, of course, subjective point of view but aren't them all.
So why should I change?
Rhetoric question...And no, I don't work for Microsoft (in fact I don't work at all at the moment) ;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153219</id>
	<title>Re:No fan of MS, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243683360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I completely agree.</p><p>You can generally break your browser users down into two categories:</p><p>a) Those who don't realise there are alternatives; and<br>b) Those who do.</p><p>For people in the first category the choice of browser is a simple one. The computer they bought comes with Internet Explorer or Safari installed. Simply given a list of bundled browsers these people will not be able to make an informed decision (from security, usability, support/extension, and accessibility standpoints) regarding which is the best browser for them.</p><p>The second group of users realise that alternatives exist and simply have to make the choice that is right for them. Microsoft and Apple both reasonably support alternative browser packages so using an alternative browser is simply a matter of locating and installing the software.</p><p>Decisions like these are just impede the design of new browsers. I really don't want to start seeing links like the following sprouting up throughout browsers:</p><p>"Install Internet Explorer alternatives."<br>"Install Safari alternatives."<br>"Install Firefox alternatives."<br>"Install Opera alternatives."<br>"Install Konqueror alternatives."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Such links only serve to clutter already cluttered UI designs and they don't actually provide the information a user needs to make an informed decision anyway.</p><p>The EU commission would be better served by creating an unbiased information package detailing:</p><p>- The choices available;<br>- The good and the bad of the choices available;<br>- Instructions for obtaining and installing/uninstalling a choice;<br>- The importance of keeping a choice updated to the latest version; and<br>- General internet browsing safety tips (Confidentiality, Security,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...);</p><p>This information package could then be distributed alongside OEM distributions as a brochure. Done correctly it wouldn't cost a great deal and in my opinion would have a much greater impact than package bundling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I completely agree.You can generally break your browser users down into two categories : a ) Those who do n't realise there are alternatives ; andb ) Those who do.For people in the first category the choice of browser is a simple one .
The computer they bought comes with Internet Explorer or Safari installed .
Simply given a list of bundled browsers these people will not be able to make an informed decision ( from security , usability , support/extension , and accessibility standpoints ) regarding which is the best browser for them.The second group of users realise that alternatives exist and simply have to make the choice that is right for them .
Microsoft and Apple both reasonably support alternative browser packages so using an alternative browser is simply a matter of locating and installing the software.Decisions like these are just impede the design of new browsers .
I really do n't want to start seeing links like the following sprouting up throughout browsers : " Install Internet Explorer alternatives .
" " Install Safari alternatives .
" " Install Firefox alternatives .
" " Install Opera alternatives .
" " Install Konqueror alternatives .
" ...Such links only serve to clutter already cluttered UI designs and they do n't actually provide the information a user needs to make an informed decision anyway.The EU commission would be better served by creating an unbiased information package detailing : - The choices available ; - The good and the bad of the choices available ; - Instructions for obtaining and installing/uninstalling a choice ; - The importance of keeping a choice updated to the latest version ; and- General internet browsing safety tips ( Confidentiality , Security , ... ) ; This information package could then be distributed alongside OEM distributions as a brochure .
Done correctly it would n't cost a great deal and in my opinion would have a much greater impact than package bundling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I completely agree.You can generally break your browser users down into two categories:a) Those who don't realise there are alternatives; andb) Those who do.For people in the first category the choice of browser is a simple one.
The computer they bought comes with Internet Explorer or Safari installed.
Simply given a list of bundled browsers these people will not be able to make an informed decision (from security, usability, support/extension, and accessibility standpoints) regarding which is the best browser for them.The second group of users realise that alternatives exist and simply have to make the choice that is right for them.
Microsoft and Apple both reasonably support alternative browser packages so using an alternative browser is simply a matter of locating and installing the software.Decisions like these are just impede the design of new browsers.
I really don't want to start seeing links like the following sprouting up throughout browsers:"Install Internet Explorer alternatives.
""Install Safari alternatives.
""Install Firefox alternatives.
""Install Opera alternatives.
""Install Konqueror alternatives.
" ...Such links only serve to clutter already cluttered UI designs and they don't actually provide the information a user needs to make an informed decision anyway.The EU commission would be better served by creating an unbiased information package detailing:- The choices available;- The good and the bad of the choices available;- Instructions for obtaining and installing/uninstalling a choice;- The importance of keeping a choice updated to the latest version; and- General internet browsing safety tips (Confidentiality, Security, ...);This information package could then be distributed alongside OEM distributions as a brochure.
Done correctly it wouldn't cost a great deal and in my opinion would have a much greater impact than package bundling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152657</id>
	<title>Re:They'll cock it up</title>
	<author>zoney\_ie</author>
	<datestamp>1243679640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The EU compared to who else...? The old saying "better late than never" comes to mind. I think the US opted for the "never" approach to doing something about IE bundling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The EU compared to who else... ?
The old saying " better late than never " comes to mind .
I think the US opted for the " never " approach to doing something about IE bundling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The EU compared to who else...?
The old saying "better late than never" comes to mind.
I think the US opted for the "never" approach to doing something about IE bundling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153205</id>
	<title>Re:Forcing OEMs?</title>
	<author>lilo\_booter</author>
	<datestamp>1243683300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why the browser? Why not go the whole hog and allow the selection (and reselection) of the OS itself?</p><p>If you agree to a pay for your selected OS, then you provide credit card details and buy it. If it's free, no cc needed.</p><p>It would only mean that you'd need a default OS which acts as a selection mechanism for your OS of choice - and it's not like you couldn't bundle a couple of distros (including windows) on a DVD which would provide a couple of systems for the broadband challenged fraternity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why the browser ?
Why not go the whole hog and allow the selection ( and reselection ) of the OS itself ? If you agree to a pay for your selected OS , then you provide credit card details and buy it .
If it 's free , no cc needed.It would only mean that you 'd need a default OS which acts as a selection mechanism for your OS of choice - and it 's not like you could n't bundle a couple of distros ( including windows ) on a DVD which would provide a couple of systems for the broadband challenged fraternity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why the browser?
Why not go the whole hog and allow the selection (and reselection) of the OS itself?If you agree to a pay for your selected OS, then you provide credit card details and buy it.
If it's free, no cc needed.It would only mean that you'd need a default OS which acts as a selection mechanism for your OS of choice - and it's not like you couldn't bundle a couple of distros (including windows) on a DVD which would provide a couple of systems for the broadband challenged fraternity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28165849</id>
	<title>Knee jerk reaction?</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1243856760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many years do you need for something *not* to be a knee jerk reaction?</p><p>One hundred?</p><p>One glacial age?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many years do you need for something * not * to be a knee jerk reaction ? One hundred ? One glacial age ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many years do you need for something *not* to be a knee jerk reaction?One hundred?One glacial age?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28156773</id>
	<title>Re:Forcing OEMs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243765920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess when Apple starts getting this treatment then it would be fair, but only going after Microsoft just seems to be avoiding a larger issue.</p><p>I mean what next will you have options to select non-Microsoft drivers when installing the OS?  Or what about the explorer file system itself?</p><p>I would think that when you spend the money to develope and test the system you built that if someone wants something different IE a web browser they can get there lazy @ss on the internet and download it themselves.</p><p>You don't see people jocking Apple about including other browsers.  Heck Apple won't even let you install their OS on hardware of your choice.  If that's not anti-competitive I don't know what is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess when Apple starts getting this treatment then it would be fair , but only going after Microsoft just seems to be avoiding a larger issue.I mean what next will you have options to select non-Microsoft drivers when installing the OS ?
Or what about the explorer file system itself ? I would think that when you spend the money to develope and test the system you built that if someone wants something different IE a web browser they can get there lazy @ ss on the internet and download it themselves.You do n't see people jocking Apple about including other browsers .
Heck Apple wo n't even let you install their OS on hardware of your choice .
If that 's not anti-competitive I do n't know what is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess when Apple starts getting this treatment then it would be fair, but only going after Microsoft just seems to be avoiding a larger issue.I mean what next will you have options to select non-Microsoft drivers when installing the OS?
Or what about the explorer file system itself?I would think that when you spend the money to develope and test the system you built that if someone wants something different IE a web browser they can get there lazy @ss on the internet and download it themselves.You don't see people jocking Apple about including other browsers.
Heck Apple won't even let you install their OS on hardware of your choice.
If that's not anti-competitive I don't know what is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153225</id>
	<title>Re:This just cracks me up...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243683360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It cracks me up, too. The others (so far) that have replied to your post seem to be arguing that either Firefox/Mozilla, or Google, are somehow entitled to exposure through Microsoft, and earn their existences through it, and that it is not fair that they not be included as default, or at least choice...<br>.<br>"Advertising revenue. Look up how Mozilla Corporation makes money from partnerships with, possibly among others, Google."<br>.<br>What does this have to do with the Internet browser that comes with an operating system? Is there anything at all preventing users from installing, and using, their choice of browsing application if they choose to do so? Uh, no.<br>.<br>.<br>"Maybe the makers of browsers which aren't free? It would at least let people know that alternatives exist and that the "blue E" isn't "the internet""<br>.<br>Internet Exploder isn't free (in the same sense), either. So what? Insisting that the supplier of the 'Blue E' should be compelled to alert end-users to brand-x browser is as silly as saying that when a user first starts FireFox that they should be alerted about the possibility of Internet Explorer as an alternative browser.<br>.<br>.<br>"The Mozilla Foundation makes many tens of millions of dollars from Google. If nobody installs Firefox, Google isn't going to be giving them that kind of money anymore."<br>.<br>Please explain to me why exactly that Microsoft should be concerned about this? It is Mozilla's and Google's job to make users want their products.<br>.<br>.<br>"The problem here isn't (directly, at least) money, but choice. Most don't even know that they have one. You get a computer, you usually dont have a choice on what operating system it includes, and in that operating system you dont have a choice on browser (at least, no without further work/knowledge/etc)."<br>.<br>Excuse me, but, users may not think they have a choice, but, that is because those offering the choice aren't getting the word out properly. Not Microsoft's responsibility.<br>.<br>.<br>"Well that was insightful.<br>.<br>If firefox wasn't free, it wouldn't have had ANY chance against the monopolistic bundling of IE."<br>.<br>Wow, that wasn't even close to insightful. Oh, poor me, I don't have any chance. Dirty rotten monopolist, woe is me. - Baloney.<br>.<br>.<br>"I do, because I'd rather be able to develop to standards and I'd rather Web technologies could move forward again instead of being held back by one, dominant, least common denominator browser."<br>.<br>Well, that is pretty pie-in-the-sky thinking. What are YOU going to do (try to do) to make it happen? You could develop your own standards compliant Operating System, and bundle your own standards compliant browser with it, and try to make it that standard that you are grasping for.<br>.<br>Okay, we have firm standards! Unfortunately, they are not recognized, or respected by the entity that produces most popular thing that our standards are designed for. I guess they are not really standards after all, are they?<br>.<br>.<br>Come on folks, this all a bunch of crying.  If you really want \_YOURFAVORITEBROWSER\_ to be at the fore-front of people's minds, you have to promote it, and educate people about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It cracks me up , too .
The others ( so far ) that have replied to your post seem to be arguing that either Firefox/Mozilla , or Google , are somehow entitled to exposure through Microsoft , and earn their existences through it , and that it is not fair that they not be included as default , or at least choice.... " Advertising revenue .
Look up how Mozilla Corporation makes money from partnerships with , possibly among others , Google .
" .What does this have to do with the Internet browser that comes with an operating system ?
Is there anything at all preventing users from installing , and using , their choice of browsing application if they choose to do so ?
Uh , no... " Maybe the makers of browsers which are n't free ?
It would at least let people know that alternatives exist and that the " blue E " is n't " the internet " " .Internet Exploder is n't free ( in the same sense ) , either .
So what ?
Insisting that the supplier of the 'Blue E ' should be compelled to alert end-users to brand-x browser is as silly as saying that when a user first starts FireFox that they should be alerted about the possibility of Internet Explorer as an alternative browser... " The Mozilla Foundation makes many tens of millions of dollars from Google .
If nobody installs Firefox , Google is n't going to be giving them that kind of money anymore .
" .Please explain to me why exactly that Microsoft should be concerned about this ?
It is Mozilla 's and Google 's job to make users want their products... " The problem here is n't ( directly , at least ) money , but choice .
Most do n't even know that they have one .
You get a computer , you usually dont have a choice on what operating system it includes , and in that operating system you dont have a choice on browser ( at least , no without further work/knowledge/etc ) .
" .Excuse me , but , users may not think they have a choice , but , that is because those offering the choice are n't getting the word out properly .
Not Microsoft 's responsibility... " Well that was insightful..If firefox was n't free , it would n't have had ANY chance against the monopolistic bundling of IE .
" .Wow , that was n't even close to insightful .
Oh , poor me , I do n't have any chance .
Dirty rotten monopolist , woe is me .
- Baloney... " I do , because I 'd rather be able to develop to standards and I 'd rather Web technologies could move forward again instead of being held back by one , dominant , least common denominator browser .
" .Well , that is pretty pie-in-the-sky thinking .
What are YOU going to do ( try to do ) to make it happen ?
You could develop your own standards compliant Operating System , and bundle your own standards compliant browser with it , and try to make it that standard that you are grasping for..Okay , we have firm standards !
Unfortunately , they are not recognized , or respected by the entity that produces most popular thing that our standards are designed for .
I guess they are not really standards after all , are they ? ..Come on folks , this all a bunch of crying .
If you really want \ _YOURFAVORITEBROWSER \ _ to be at the fore-front of people 's minds , you have to promote it , and educate people about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It cracks me up, too.
The others (so far) that have replied to your post seem to be arguing that either Firefox/Mozilla, or Google, are somehow entitled to exposure through Microsoft, and earn their existences through it, and that it is not fair that they not be included as default, or at least choice...."Advertising revenue.
Look up how Mozilla Corporation makes money from partnerships with, possibly among others, Google.
".What does this have to do with the Internet browser that comes with an operating system?
Is there anything at all preventing users from installing, and using, their choice of browsing application if they choose to do so?
Uh, no..."Maybe the makers of browsers which aren't free?
It would at least let people know that alternatives exist and that the "blue E" isn't "the internet"".Internet Exploder isn't free (in the same sense), either.
So what?
Insisting that the supplier of the 'Blue E' should be compelled to alert end-users to brand-x browser is as silly as saying that when a user first starts FireFox that they should be alerted about the possibility of Internet Explorer as an alternative browser..."The Mozilla Foundation makes many tens of millions of dollars from Google.
If nobody installs Firefox, Google isn't going to be giving them that kind of money anymore.
".Please explain to me why exactly that Microsoft should be concerned about this?
It is Mozilla's and Google's job to make users want their products..."The problem here isn't (directly, at least) money, but choice.
Most don't even know that they have one.
You get a computer, you usually dont have a choice on what operating system it includes, and in that operating system you dont have a choice on browser (at least, no without further work/knowledge/etc).
".Excuse me, but, users may not think they have a choice, but, that is because those offering the choice aren't getting the word out properly.
Not Microsoft's responsibility..."Well that was insightful..If firefox wasn't free, it wouldn't have had ANY chance against the monopolistic bundling of IE.
".Wow, that wasn't even close to insightful.
Oh, poor me, I don't have any chance.
Dirty rotten monopolist, woe is me.
- Baloney..."I do, because I'd rather be able to develop to standards and I'd rather Web technologies could move forward again instead of being held back by one, dominant, least common denominator browser.
".Well, that is pretty pie-in-the-sky thinking.
What are YOU going to do (try to do) to make it happen?
You could develop your own standards compliant Operating System, and bundle your own standards compliant browser with it, and try to make it that standard that you are grasping for..Okay, we have firm standards!
Unfortunately, they are not recognized, or respected by the entity that produces most popular thing that our standards are designed for.
I guess they are not really standards after all, are they?..Come on folks, this all a bunch of crying.
If you really want \_YOURFAVORITEBROWSER\_ to be at the fore-front of people's minds, you have to promote it, and educate people about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28154211</id>
	<title>tackling the wrong problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243690560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The EU should force the large PC manufacturers to support multiple OSes, that's all that is needed. Start with drivers, come up with a certificate that is awarded only if the hardware manufacturer publishes an Open Source reference driver for that piece of hardware, then make that certificate a requirement for imports into / sales in the EU.
<p>I really don't see why the browser should be such a priority, it is easier to install Firefox than another OS and Windows is more dominant in the OS market than MSIE in the browser market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The EU should force the large PC manufacturers to support multiple OSes , that 's all that is needed .
Start with drivers , come up with a certificate that is awarded only if the hardware manufacturer publishes an Open Source reference driver for that piece of hardware , then make that certificate a requirement for imports into / sales in the EU .
I really do n't see why the browser should be such a priority , it is easier to install Firefox than another OS and Windows is more dominant in the OS market than MSIE in the browser market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The EU should force the large PC manufacturers to support multiple OSes, that's all that is needed.
Start with drivers, come up with a certificate that is awarded only if the hardware manufacturer publishes an Open Source reference driver for that piece of hardware, then make that certificate a requirement for imports into / sales in the EU.
I really don't see why the browser should be such a priority, it is easier to install Firefox than another OS and Windows is more dominant in the OS market than MSIE in the browser market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152833</id>
	<title>This is a pain in the rear for consumers but...</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1243680840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The last thing a consumer wants to do, when they turn on a computer, is to immediately be asked more questions.  It's a pain in the rear.  Sorry EU, but how about we start requiring that all cars imported from the EU to the USA have the option of being fitted with American V8s....</p><p>oh wait, that sounds like a good a idea.</p><p>Never mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The last thing a consumer wants to do , when they turn on a computer , is to immediately be asked more questions .
It 's a pain in the rear .
Sorry EU , but how about we start requiring that all cars imported from the EU to the USA have the option of being fitted with American V8s....oh wait , that sounds like a good a idea.Never mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The last thing a consumer wants to do, when they turn on a computer, is to immediately be asked more questions.
It's a pain in the rear.
Sorry EU, but how about we start requiring that all cars imported from the EU to the USA have the option of being fitted with American V8s....oh wait, that sounds like a good a idea.Never mind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153315</id>
	<title>Oh, maybe we should have this for everything then?</title>
	<author>Kuciwalker</author>
	<datestamp>1243683900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would just LOVE to, when installing Windows, have to sit through a dozen screens asking me "hey which browser do you want, hey which text editor do you want, hey which music player do you want, hey which chat software do you want...".  NOT.  FUCK YOU EU, your whole court system is a bunch of money-grubbing morons.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would just LOVE to , when installing Windows , have to sit through a dozen screens asking me " hey which browser do you want , hey which text editor do you want , hey which music player do you want , hey which chat software do you want... " .
NOT. FUCK YOU EU , your whole court system is a bunch of money-grubbing morons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would just LOVE to, when installing Windows, have to sit through a dozen screens asking me "hey which browser do you want, hey which text editor do you want, hey which music player do you want, hey which chat software do you want...".
NOT.  FUCK YOU EU, your whole court system is a bunch of money-grubbing morons.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28158655</id>
	<title>What about Apple?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243788600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Surely if the EU are "considering forcing Windows users to choose a browser to download and install", then the same rule should be applied to Mac users, too. I can't see Apple being any more keen on the idea of being forced to give their users the option for an alternate browser right from the off than Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely if the EU are " considering forcing Windows users to choose a browser to download and install " , then the same rule should be applied to Mac users , too .
I ca n't see Apple being any more keen on the idea of being forced to give their users the option for an alternate browser right from the off than Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely if the EU are "considering forcing Windows users to choose a browser to download and install", then the same rule should be applied to Mac users, too.
I can't see Apple being any more keen on the idea of being forced to give their users the option for an alternate browser right from the off than Microsoft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153127</id>
	<title>Please download browser later...</title>
	<author>creimer</author>
	<datestamp>1243682640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The first thing that I want a brand new Windows installation to do is download the latest security patches.  Downloading a web browser should come after that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The first thing that I want a brand new Windows installation to do is download the latest security patches .
Downloading a web browser should come after that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first thing that I want a brand new Windows installation to do is download the latest security patches.
Downloading a web browser should come after that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152699</id>
	<title>Re:Forcing OEMs?</title>
	<author>99BottlesOfBeerInMyF</author>
	<datestamp>1243679940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The solution to the problem is to force Microsoft to allow OEMs to bundle other browsers with Windows the same way they do anything else.</p></div><p>That would once have  been a viable solution. That is no longer the case. The remedy for a knife wound is more than removing the knife. The EU needs to repair the damage done to the market, and that means restoring the browser market to a competitive state. OEMs have plenty of incentive to bundle only IE, resulting from the current, broken state of the market, even if they are not forbidden from installing others. If the EU is really looking to restore a competitive free market where innovation is driven by the market they need to go further. Requiring the inclusion of a standards compliant browser prevents IE from blocking the advancement of Web standards and jumpstarts the broken market.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The solution to the problem is to force Microsoft to allow OEMs to bundle other browsers with Windows the same way they do anything else.That would once have been a viable solution .
That is no longer the case .
The remedy for a knife wound is more than removing the knife .
The EU needs to repair the damage done to the market , and that means restoring the browser market to a competitive state .
OEMs have plenty of incentive to bundle only IE , resulting from the current , broken state of the market , even if they are not forbidden from installing others .
If the EU is really looking to restore a competitive free market where innovation is driven by the market they need to go further .
Requiring the inclusion of a standards compliant browser prevents IE from blocking the advancement of Web standards and jumpstarts the broken market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The solution to the problem is to force Microsoft to allow OEMs to bundle other browsers with Windows the same way they do anything else.That would once have  been a viable solution.
That is no longer the case.
The remedy for a knife wound is more than removing the knife.
The EU needs to repair the damage done to the market, and that means restoring the browser market to a competitive state.
OEMs have plenty of incentive to bundle only IE, resulting from the current, broken state of the market, even if they are not forbidden from installing others.
If the EU is really looking to restore a competitive free market where innovation is driven by the market they need to go further.
Requiring the inclusion of a standards compliant browser prevents IE from blocking the advancement of Web standards and jumpstarts the broken market.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28159275</id>
	<title>This is not going to work cleanly at all</title>
	<author>Catalina588</author>
	<datestamp>1243793640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>January 2010. OK, so I take my new Windows 7 laptop back to my Paris hotel.  Too bad I accidently dropped the old one in the Seine. I start it up and select a browser to download.  Oops, hard stop. The hotel, like many, requires a web browser present in order to authenticate and establish an Internet connection. No web browser, no connection, no browser download. Thanks, EU competition bureaucracy, for making it impossible to fulfill the EU-mandated requirements.  (Unless the EU is going to put always-on Internet access ports in all public places. Not.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>January 2010 .
OK , so I take my new Windows 7 laptop back to my Paris hotel .
Too bad I accidently dropped the old one in the Seine .
I start it up and select a browser to download .
Oops , hard stop .
The hotel , like many , requires a web browser present in order to authenticate and establish an Internet connection .
No web browser , no connection , no browser download .
Thanks , EU competition bureaucracy , for making it impossible to fulfill the EU-mandated requirements .
( Unless the EU is going to put always-on Internet access ports in all public places .
Not. )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>January 2010.
OK, so I take my new Windows 7 laptop back to my Paris hotel.
Too bad I accidently dropped the old one in the Seine.
I start it up and select a browser to download.
Oops, hard stop.
The hotel, like many, requires a web browser present in order to authenticate and establish an Internet connection.
No web browser, no connection, no browser download.
Thanks, EU competition bureaucracy, for making it impossible to fulfill the EU-mandated requirements.
(Unless the EU is going to put always-on Internet access ports in all public places.
Not.)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28158281</id>
	<title>Re:The EU is still beating this dead horse?</title>
	<author>Serious Callers Only</author>
	<datestamp>1243785420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Don't get me wrong - I don't love Microsoft and I don't even use IE. But aren't the browser wars pretty much dead?</p></div><p>No, they're very much alive. Why do you think Microsoft is now pushing Silverlight and the tie-ins with<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net that brings? The web, in particular HTML 5, is a serious threat to the dominance of Windows, and thus Office.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> If you think that MS has an unfair monopoly in the OS world, is this really the most effective way to end that?</p></div><p>Of course not. However if you think that MS is unfairly abusing a monopoly in the OS world to impose restrictions on bundled software, this is a very good way to end that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't get me wrong - I do n't love Microsoft and I do n't even use IE .
But are n't the browser wars pretty much dead ? No , they 're very much alive .
Why do you think Microsoft is now pushing Silverlight and the tie-ins with .Net that brings ?
The web , in particular HTML 5 , is a serious threat to the dominance of Windows , and thus Office .
If you think that MS has an unfair monopoly in the OS world , is this really the most effective way to end that ? Of course not .
However if you think that MS is unfairly abusing a monopoly in the OS world to impose restrictions on bundled software , this is a very good way to end that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't get me wrong - I don't love Microsoft and I don't even use IE.
But aren't the browser wars pretty much dead?No, they're very much alive.
Why do you think Microsoft is now pushing Silverlight and the tie-ins with .Net that brings?
The web, in particular HTML 5, is a serious threat to the dominance of Windows, and thus Office.
If you think that MS has an unfair monopoly in the OS world, is this really the most effective way to end that?Of course not.
However if you think that MS is unfairly abusing a monopoly in the OS world to impose restrictions on bundled software, this is a very good way to end that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152719</id>
	<title>Sigh... please include \_my\_ pet project too.</title>
	<author>nwanua</author>
	<datestamp>1243680060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me preface this tirade with a disclaimer: Yes, I realize Microsoft is a huge company, with enough resources and market share to constitute a monopoly, and is therefore deserving of governments' watchful eyes. I also realize that IE may not be the highest quality browser out there; and that Microsoft has been known to 'embrace and extinguish'. I'm also glad that Microsoft didn't get to design (for instance) the IMAP RFC. Please note I'm not making any \_legal\_ arguments, just "history-of-OS" type arguments.</p><p>HOWEVER, this knee-jerk reaction to the browser-wars is really fundamentally flawed. My argument is what we, the user, perceive as an operating system changes and grows over time. I think it's time we realize that a music jukebox, dvd player, web browser, and text editor have become integral parts of an OS (per my definition). I think it is in the same manner as a command shell, file browser (cd &amp; ls), calendar, chat client, windowing system, network stack, etc. have become what we'd consider part of an OS.</p><p>Some companies and organizations are clamoring for inclusion of their pet projects by default... I say "rubbish. You might as well ask the user to choose different versions of the TCP stack, paint program, image libraries, and mouse drivers too." I can't make any analogies to car makers, nor do I care to. We can argue about "stifling innovation and choice" until we're blue in the face, but I still insist that a web browser is integral to the operating system. Go and get alternatives if you like, just as you're free to get another media player, paint program or ftp client.</p><p>I don't see noise directed against Apple or Linux or BSD, likely because they are {not monopolies | high enough in market share | something else that I can't grok}. This would suggest that the bundling of Safari on Mac, or Mozilla on Linux is not fundamentally wrong, and is also not wrong on Windows. I'm sure there are good arguments for the EU poking its nose, but since they're so caring, they should also ask nicely that MS provide users with choice of desktop clock widgets so that the poor makers of clock software aren't left out.</p><p>Perhaps this is unfair to the hapless (as far as tech goes) politicians, but they seem little more than shills for lobbyists, and don't seem to really understand the dangerous precedent they might be setting. That, I find really irritating.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me preface this tirade with a disclaimer : Yes , I realize Microsoft is a huge company , with enough resources and market share to constitute a monopoly , and is therefore deserving of governments ' watchful eyes .
I also realize that IE may not be the highest quality browser out there ; and that Microsoft has been known to 'embrace and extinguish' .
I 'm also glad that Microsoft did n't get to design ( for instance ) the IMAP RFC .
Please note I 'm not making any \ _legal \ _ arguments , just " history-of-OS " type arguments.HOWEVER , this knee-jerk reaction to the browser-wars is really fundamentally flawed .
My argument is what we , the user , perceive as an operating system changes and grows over time .
I think it 's time we realize that a music jukebox , dvd player , web browser , and text editor have become integral parts of an OS ( per my definition ) .
I think it is in the same manner as a command shell , file browser ( cd &amp; ls ) , calendar , chat client , windowing system , network stack , etc .
have become what we 'd consider part of an OS.Some companies and organizations are clamoring for inclusion of their pet projects by default... I say " rubbish .
You might as well ask the user to choose different versions of the TCP stack , paint program , image libraries , and mouse drivers too .
" I ca n't make any analogies to car makers , nor do I care to .
We can argue about " stifling innovation and choice " until we 're blue in the face , but I still insist that a web browser is integral to the operating system .
Go and get alternatives if you like , just as you 're free to get another media player , paint program or ftp client.I do n't see noise directed against Apple or Linux or BSD , likely because they are { not monopolies | high enough in market share | something else that I ca n't grok } .
This would suggest that the bundling of Safari on Mac , or Mozilla on Linux is not fundamentally wrong , and is also not wrong on Windows .
I 'm sure there are good arguments for the EU poking its nose , but since they 're so caring , they should also ask nicely that MS provide users with choice of desktop clock widgets so that the poor makers of clock software are n't left out.Perhaps this is unfair to the hapless ( as far as tech goes ) politicians , but they seem little more than shills for lobbyists , and do n't seem to really understand the dangerous precedent they might be setting .
That , I find really irritating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me preface this tirade with a disclaimer: Yes, I realize Microsoft is a huge company, with enough resources and market share to constitute a monopoly, and is therefore deserving of governments' watchful eyes.
I also realize that IE may not be the highest quality browser out there; and that Microsoft has been known to 'embrace and extinguish'.
I'm also glad that Microsoft didn't get to design (for instance) the IMAP RFC.
Please note I'm not making any \_legal\_ arguments, just "history-of-OS" type arguments.HOWEVER, this knee-jerk reaction to the browser-wars is really fundamentally flawed.
My argument is what we, the user, perceive as an operating system changes and grows over time.
I think it's time we realize that a music jukebox, dvd player, web browser, and text editor have become integral parts of an OS (per my definition).
I think it is in the same manner as a command shell, file browser (cd &amp; ls), calendar, chat client, windowing system, network stack, etc.
have become what we'd consider part of an OS.Some companies and organizations are clamoring for inclusion of their pet projects by default... I say "rubbish.
You might as well ask the user to choose different versions of the TCP stack, paint program, image libraries, and mouse drivers too.
" I can't make any analogies to car makers, nor do I care to.
We can argue about "stifling innovation and choice" until we're blue in the face, but I still insist that a web browser is integral to the operating system.
Go and get alternatives if you like, just as you're free to get another media player, paint program or ftp client.I don't see noise directed against Apple or Linux or BSD, likely because they are {not monopolies | high enough in market share | something else that I can't grok}.
This would suggest that the bundling of Safari on Mac, or Mozilla on Linux is not fundamentally wrong, and is also not wrong on Windows.
I'm sure there are good arguments for the EU poking its nose, but since they're so caring, they should also ask nicely that MS provide users with choice of desktop clock widgets so that the poor makers of clock software aren't left out.Perhaps this is unfair to the hapless (as far as tech goes) politicians, but they seem little more than shills for lobbyists, and don't seem to really understand the dangerous precedent they might be setting.
That, I find really irritating.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28157019</id>
	<title>The best solution</title>
	<author>Nichotin</author>
	<datestamp>1243769700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The best solution to all this madness would be to disallow Microsoft to have lock-in technologies in their bundled browser, media player and so on. Bundle Windows Media Player all you want, as long as all Microsoft format it plays are open... Then anyone can create a competing player knowing they also can implement the same formats. Same logic goes for IE8.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The best solution to all this madness would be to disallow Microsoft to have lock-in technologies in their bundled browser , media player and so on .
Bundle Windows Media Player all you want , as long as all Microsoft format it plays are open... Then anyone can create a competing player knowing they also can implement the same formats .
Same logic goes for IE8 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best solution to all this madness would be to disallow Microsoft to have lock-in technologies in their bundled browser, media player and so on.
Bundle Windows Media Player all you want, as long as all Microsoft format it plays are open... Then anyone can create a competing player knowing they also can implement the same formats.
Same logic goes for IE8.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152443</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28158779</id>
	<title>Why go through all that bother</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243789620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>...when you could just have a standardized radio enclosure and hook-up, and you can either build your own radio and put it in, or buy any number of different makes that adhere to these standards, and put one of those in?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...when you could just have a standardized radio enclosure and hook-up , and you can either build your own radio and put it in , or buy any number of different makes that adhere to these standards , and put one of those in ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...when you could just have a standardized radio enclosure and hook-up, and you can either build your own radio and put it in, or buy any number of different makes that adhere to these standards, and put one of those in?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152989</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152705</id>
	<title>Re:This just cracks me up...</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1243679940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem here isn't (directly, at least) money, but choice. Most don't even know that they have one. You get a computer, you usually dont have a choice on what operating system it includes, and in that operating system you dont have a choice on browser (at least, no without further work/knowledge/etc).

Also, you can consider all free, but that dont make them all equal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem here is n't ( directly , at least ) money , but choice .
Most do n't even know that they have one .
You get a computer , you usually dont have a choice on what operating system it includes , and in that operating system you dont have a choice on browser ( at least , no without further work/knowledge/etc ) .
Also , you can consider all free , but that dont make them all equal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem here isn't (directly, at least) money, but choice.
Most don't even know that they have one.
You get a computer, you usually dont have a choice on what operating system it includes, and in that operating system you dont have a choice on browser (at least, no without further work/knowledge/etc).
Also, you can consider all free, but that dont make them all equal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28165877</id>
	<title>Don't blame the EU, blame Microsoft.</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1243857060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Authorities in general don't get to clean the mess left behind by people or entities braking the law.</p><p>They impose remediation that in many instances may not be 100\% satisfactory, but they may be doing the best of a bad job.</p><p>MS is the one that created this mess, don't blame the EU if it is difficult to come with a clean solution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Authorities in general do n't get to clean the mess left behind by people or entities braking the law.They impose remediation that in many instances may not be 100 \ % satisfactory , but they may be doing the best of a bad job.MS is the one that created this mess , do n't blame the EU if it is difficult to come with a clean solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Authorities in general don't get to clean the mess left behind by people or entities braking the law.They impose remediation that in many instances may not be 100\% satisfactory, but they may be doing the best of a bad job.MS is the one that created this mess, don't blame the EU if it is difficult to come with a clean solution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152833</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28156133</id>
	<title>Re:This is a pain in the rear for consumers but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243711980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Drive an European TDI engine(yes, it's diesel!)!!!<br>Americans normally drive Gasoline engines, Europeans normally drive diesel engines. Americans normally have wood-made Houses, Europeans have (99\%europeans have, so i don&#194;t wrote "normally") concrete-made houses!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Drive an European TDI engine ( yes , it 's diesel ! ) ! !
! Americans normally drive Gasoline engines , Europeans normally drive diesel engines .
Americans normally have wood-made Houses , Europeans have ( 99 \ % europeans have , so i don   t wrote " normally " ) concrete-made houses !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Drive an European TDI engine(yes, it's diesel!)!!
!Americans normally drive Gasoline engines, Europeans normally drive diesel engines.
Americans normally have wood-made Houses, Europeans have (99\%europeans have, so i donÂt wrote "normally") concrete-made houses!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152833</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28166133</id>
	<title>Re:For fuck's sake...</title>
	<author>hkmwbz</author>
	<datestamp>1243860120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Can you show me the specific law which prevents anything MS did?</p></div></blockquote><p>
Stop being a complete idiot. Several people have explained this to your ignorant and dishonest ass several times. So why do you keep asking the same question over and over and over again?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you show me the specific law which prevents anything MS did ?
Stop being a complete idiot .
Several people have explained this to your ignorant and dishonest ass several times .
So why do you keep asking the same question over and over and over again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you show me the specific law which prevents anything MS did?
Stop being a complete idiot.
Several people have explained this to your ignorant and dishonest ass several times.
So why do you keep asking the same question over and over and over again?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28160407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152525</id>
	<title>Why stop there?</title>
	<author>LoverOfJoy</author>
	<datestamp>1243678800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How long until they're forced to offer options of different operating systems at startup?<br> <br>
<br> <br>
Are they required to pick popular browsers as alternatives?
<br> <br>
Which browser would you like to use? Internet Explorer, Lynx, or xBrowser?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How long until they 're forced to offer options of different operating systems at startup ?
Are they required to pick popular browsers as alternatives ?
Which browser would you like to use ?
Internet Explorer , Lynx , or xBrowser ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long until they're forced to offer options of different operating systems at startup?
Are they required to pick popular browsers as alternatives?
Which browser would you like to use?
Internet Explorer, Lynx, or xBrowser?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152805</id>
	<title>Re:Hm.</title>
	<author>Bill, Shooter of Bul</author>
	<datestamp>1243680600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, If I were Microsoft, I would provide the following options
<br> <br>
<a href="http://www.w3.org/Amaya" title="w3.org">amaya</a> [w3.org] <br>
<a href="http://www.maxthon.com/index.htm" title="maxthon.com">Maxthon</a> [maxthon.com] <br>
<a href="http://www.crazybrowser.com/beta.htm" title="crazybrowser.com">crazy browser</a> [crazybrowser.com] <br>
<a href="http://grail.sourceforge.net/" title="sourceforge.net"> grail</a> [sourceforge.net]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , If I were Microsoft , I would provide the following options amaya [ w3.org ] Maxthon [ maxthon.com ] crazy browser [ crazybrowser.com ] grail [ sourceforge.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, If I were Microsoft, I would provide the following options
 
amaya [w3.org] 
Maxthon [maxthon.com] 
crazy browser [crazybrowser.com] 
 grail [sourceforge.net]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152443</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153653</id>
	<title>Going too far...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243686420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So when is the EU going to slap Apple computers with the same thing. OS X comes with Safari... that's bad! When I buy and install an OS I expect to be able to use the internet, listen to music. If it keeps going on like this, they are going to make us get a media player, a browser, quite possibly we might have to get a start button! =O. I better see Apple computers getting slapped with the same type of bullsh*t in the future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So when is the EU going to slap Apple computers with the same thing .
OS X comes with Safari... that 's bad !
When I buy and install an OS I expect to be able to use the internet , listen to music .
If it keeps going on like this , they are going to make us get a media player , a browser , quite possibly we might have to get a start button !
= O. I better see Apple computers getting slapped with the same type of bullsh * t in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So when is the EU going to slap Apple computers with the same thing.
OS X comes with Safari... that's bad!
When I buy and install an OS I expect to be able to use the internet, listen to music.
If it keeps going on like this, they are going to make us get a media player, a browser, quite possibly we might have to get a start button!
=O. I better see Apple computers getting slapped with the same type of bullsh*t in the future.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28157965</id>
	<title>Haven't we don't this before?</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1243782660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With ISP's ? I remember when you had to delete AOL, MSN, etc off the desktops.  That was really effective, wasn't it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With ISP 's ?
I remember when you had to delete AOL , MSN , etc off the desktops .
That was really effective , was n't it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With ISP's ?
I remember when you had to delete AOL, MSN, etc off the desktops.
That was really effective, wasn't it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28157121</id>
	<title>One more reason ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243771320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am so happy not be subject to the insanity known as the EU.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am so happy not be subject to the insanity known as the EU .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am so happy not be subject to the insanity known as the EU.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28165897</id>
	<title>Great argument. Lets pardon popular lawbreakers.</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1243857240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is a great way of approach problems you have got there: brake the law in a way that makes life convenient, sit down and relax basking in your success since there will be people willing to vouch for you overlooking your illegal or unethical activities.</p><p>How can serious people advocate this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is a great way of approach problems you have got there : brake the law in a way that makes life convenient , sit down and relax basking in your success since there will be people willing to vouch for you overlooking your illegal or unethical activities.How can serious people advocate this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is a great way of approach problems you have got there: brake the law in a way that makes life convenient, sit down and relax basking in your success since there will be people willing to vouch for you overlooking your illegal or unethical activities.How can serious people advocate this?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152953</id>
	<title>If i were MS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243681620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I were MS I'd do it for them for free:</p><p>Just include a copy of lynx.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I were MS I 'd do it for them for free : Just include a copy of lynx .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I were MS I'd do it for them for free:Just include a copy of lynx.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152549</id>
	<title>Re:The EU is still beating this dead horse?</title>
	<author>elashish14</author>
	<datestamp>1243678920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree that the browser wars are dead, and that there are much worse things with MS than their practices with IE. What boils my blood most is how the price of XP dropped off the market for no particular reason once we started seeing OEMs put Linux on netbooks. Why was XP still $100 about 5 years after and all of a sudden it's down to $30? Isn't this far more abusive as a monopoly? It's not even just one corner aspect of the OS, it's the entire thing that they're using to lock you in. I just don't get it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that the browser wars are dead , and that there are much worse things with MS than their practices with IE .
What boils my blood most is how the price of XP dropped off the market for no particular reason once we started seeing OEMs put Linux on netbooks .
Why was XP still $ 100 about 5 years after and all of a sudden it 's down to $ 30 ?
Is n't this far more abusive as a monopoly ?
It 's not even just one corner aspect of the OS , it 's the entire thing that they 're using to lock you in .
I just do n't get it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that the browser wars are dead, and that there are much worse things with MS than their practices with IE.
What boils my blood most is how the price of XP dropped off the market for no particular reason once we started seeing OEMs put Linux on netbooks.
Why was XP still $100 about 5 years after and all of a sudden it's down to $30?
Isn't this far more abusive as a monopoly?
It's not even just one corner aspect of the OS, it's the entire thing that they're using to lock you in.
I just don't get it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152287</id>
	<title>The EU is still beating this dead horse?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243677600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't get me wrong - I don't love Microsoft and I don't even use IE.  But aren't the browser wars pretty much dead?  If you think that MS has an unfair monopoly in the OS world, is this really the most effective way to end that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't get me wrong - I do n't love Microsoft and I do n't even use IE .
But are n't the browser wars pretty much dead ?
If you think that MS has an unfair monopoly in the OS world , is this really the most effective way to end that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't get me wrong - I don't love Microsoft and I don't even use IE.
But aren't the browser wars pretty much dead?
If you think that MS has an unfair monopoly in the OS world, is this really the most effective way to end that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28156075</id>
	<title>Re:Hm.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243711380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You must be... wait.. aw.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You must be... wait.. aw.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must be... wait.. aw.....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152443</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152815</id>
	<title>F***ing stupid beyond belief</title>
	<author>knorthern knight</author>
	<datestamp>1243680660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So "all other browsers" can demand to be on the list.  What's to prevent "American Adware" and "Built By Boris" (from Russian Business Network) from showing up on the list?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So " all other browsers " can demand to be on the list .
What 's to prevent " American Adware " and " Built By Boris " ( from Russian Business Network ) from showing up on the list ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So "all other browsers" can demand to be on the list.
What's to prevent "American Adware" and "Built By Boris" (from Russian Business Network) from showing up on the list?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152309</id>
	<title>Bah Humbug</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243677780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wont anybody think of the users. I dont want to have to make choices thats why I use Windows  in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wont anybody think of the users .
I dont want to have to make choices thats why I use Windows in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wont anybody think of the users.
I dont want to have to make choices thats why I use Windows  in the first place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153591</id>
	<title>Re:Read much?</title>
	<author>nutrock69</author>
	<datestamp>1243686000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Could be, in your native language "making available" and "support" are synonymous</p></div></blockquote><p>Well, in the countries governed by pawns of the RIAA/MPAA, the phrase "making available" is synonymous with "intent to distribute others' work as your own".</p><p>Under these conditions, I can understand perfectly well why some might be under the (mistaken) impression that Microsoft will be forced to distribute and support other browsers...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could be , in your native language " making available " and " support " are synonymousWell , in the countries governed by pawns of the RIAA/MPAA , the phrase " making available " is synonymous with " intent to distribute others ' work as your own " .Under these conditions , I can understand perfectly well why some might be under the ( mistaken ) impression that Microsoft will be forced to distribute and support other browsers.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could be, in your native language "making available" and "support" are synonymousWell, in the countries governed by pawns of the RIAA/MPAA, the phrase "making available" is synonymous with "intent to distribute others' work as your own".Under these conditions, I can understand perfectly well why some might be under the (mistaken) impression that Microsoft will be forced to distribute and support other browsers...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152895</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152897</id>
	<title>Re:Hm.</title>
	<author>Patch86</author>
	<datestamp>1243681320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not all things served over the internet are done through a web browser. Haven't you heard of those heady days before the web, of usenets and IRCs? It'd be trivial to make a simple one-shot installer programme for allowing the user to choose and donwload a browser.</p><p>Your point about who chooses the list stands though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not all things served over the internet are done through a web browser .
Have n't you heard of those heady days before the web , of usenets and IRCs ?
It 'd be trivial to make a simple one-shot installer programme for allowing the user to choose and donwload a browser.Your point about who chooses the list stands though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not all things served over the internet are done through a web browser.
Haven't you heard of those heady days before the web, of usenets and IRCs?
It'd be trivial to make a simple one-shot installer programme for allowing the user to choose and donwload a browser.Your point about who chooses the list stands though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152443</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152297</id>
	<title>No fan of MS, but...</title>
	<author>iluvcapra</author>
	<datestamp>1243677660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is beginning to get out of hand.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is beginning to get out of hand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is beginning to get out of hand.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28154387</id>
	<title>Madness</title>
	<author>iDuck</author>
	<datestamp>1243691940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This has been taken far enough. I mean, seriously, a ballot screen?

Once you apply this system to web browsers, it sets a precedent that could be applied uniformly, i.e. choose every single piece of software individually.
Thing is, there's already something that fits this description:

it's called Gentoo.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This has been taken far enough .
I mean , seriously , a ballot screen ?
Once you apply this system to web browsers , it sets a precedent that could be applied uniformly , i.e .
choose every single piece of software individually .
Thing is , there 's already something that fits this description : it 's called Gentoo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has been taken far enough.
I mean, seriously, a ballot screen?
Once you apply this system to web browsers, it sets a precedent that could be applied uniformly, i.e.
choose every single piece of software individually.
Thing is, there's already something that fits this description:

it's called Gentoo.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28161299</id>
	<title>Re:They'll cock it up</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1243765680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Win7 lets you remove iexplore.exe but not Trident's libraries (the rendering engine).</p></div><p>Which is really good enough - it does let you remove the <em>browser</em>, which is what the user sees and interacts with.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Win7 lets you remove iexplore.exe but not Trident 's libraries ( the rendering engine ) .Which is really good enough - it does let you remove the browser , which is what the user sees and interacts with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Win7 lets you remove iexplore.exe but not Trident's libraries (the rendering engine).Which is really good enough - it does let you remove the browser, which is what the user sees and interacts with.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28160305</id>
	<title>Re:This just cracks me up...</title>
	<author>RightSaidFred99</author>
	<datestamp>1243801200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Explain to me why it matters that customers who don't care about their browser and don't give a shit enough to go find another one are massively helped by then confusing them with options they don't give a rat's ass about anyway?</p><p>When I build my grandma's computer next month, I'm going to tell her she can choose from 50 Linux distributions, 3-4 versions of Windows, and various special purpose OS's I could install for her.  When she looks at me and asks me what on earth I'm talking about and tells me she just wants to check her yahoo mail, I'm going to punch her in the face and make her choose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Explain to me why it matters that customers who do n't care about their browser and do n't give a shit enough to go find another one are massively helped by then confusing them with options they do n't give a rat 's ass about anyway ? When I build my grandma 's computer next month , I 'm going to tell her she can choose from 50 Linux distributions , 3-4 versions of Windows , and various special purpose OS 's I could install for her .
When she looks at me and asks me what on earth I 'm talking about and tells me she just wants to check her yahoo mail , I 'm going to punch her in the face and make her choose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Explain to me why it matters that customers who don't care about their browser and don't give a shit enough to go find another one are massively helped by then confusing them with options they don't give a rat's ass about anyway?When I build my grandma's computer next month, I'm going to tell her she can choose from 50 Linux distributions, 3-4 versions of Windows, and various special purpose OS's I could install for her.
When she looks at me and asks me what on earth I'm talking about and tells me she just wants to check her yahoo mail, I'm going to punch her in the face and make her choose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152705</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152903</id>
	<title>Re:Forcing OEMs?</title>
	<author>Deathlizard</author>
	<datestamp>1243681320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Grab a Compaq PC. Circa 1995-97, with one of their Customized Windows 95 OS'es on it. If it boots up and it has a Compaq Logo instead of a Win95 logo <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FfrLoI-WZQ" title="youtube.com">Like this guy's</a> [youtube.com], then you're on the right track.</p><p>After you cringe in horror, explain to me again why allowing OEM's to customize the OS to their liking is a great idea.</p><p>I'm not saying that OEM's shouldn't be allowed to add software packages, but there is a fine line between useful and performance degrading. If an OEM thinks that they can sell more than the other guys based on the "Added Value" of their craptastic software, then they will do it. Customer experience be dammed.</p><p>What needs to happen is a app store like application explorer similar to what you see in Linux and mobile phones. It makes finding, buying, (if it's not free) installing, uninstalling and maintaining software simple and easy, as well as a way to seperate the good apps from the bad. As long as it's well regulated and rules are clearly defined, I don't see how it's hurts competition or users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Grab a Compaq PC .
Circa 1995-97 , with one of their Customized Windows 95 OS'es on it .
If it boots up and it has a Compaq Logo instead of a Win95 logo Like this guy 's [ youtube.com ] , then you 're on the right track.After you cringe in horror , explain to me again why allowing OEM 's to customize the OS to their liking is a great idea.I 'm not saying that OEM 's should n't be allowed to add software packages , but there is a fine line between useful and performance degrading .
If an OEM thinks that they can sell more than the other guys based on the " Added Value " of their craptastic software , then they will do it .
Customer experience be dammed.What needs to happen is a app store like application explorer similar to what you see in Linux and mobile phones .
It makes finding , buying , ( if it 's not free ) installing , uninstalling and maintaining software simple and easy , as well as a way to seperate the good apps from the bad .
As long as it 's well regulated and rules are clearly defined , I do n't see how it 's hurts competition or users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Grab a Compaq PC.
Circa 1995-97, with one of their Customized Windows 95 OS'es on it.
If it boots up and it has a Compaq Logo instead of a Win95 logo Like this guy's [youtube.com], then you're on the right track.After you cringe in horror, explain to me again why allowing OEM's to customize the OS to their liking is a great idea.I'm not saying that OEM's shouldn't be allowed to add software packages, but there is a fine line between useful and performance degrading.
If an OEM thinks that they can sell more than the other guys based on the "Added Value" of their craptastic software, then they will do it.
Customer experience be dammed.What needs to happen is a app store like application explorer similar to what you see in Linux and mobile phones.
It makes finding, buying, (if it's not free) installing, uninstalling and maintaining software simple and easy, as well as a way to seperate the good apps from the bad.
As long as it's well regulated and rules are clearly defined, I don't see how it's hurts competition or users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28156639</id>
	<title>unimportant</title>
	<author>muckracer</author>
	<datestamp>1243763700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As far as I am concerned, this is pretty much a non-issue. If the EU intends to on creating a true-choice landscape (which wouldn't be a bad thing) they'd go for the OEM's by requiring them to have blank computers as default. If Windows is desired by the customer, they should ship an extra-cost retail copy of it (which would also take care of the recovery disk BS). Likewise for any other OS (Linux could be shipped on a simple CD if no retail box exists). This would offer true choices as well in regards to wants and needs of the customer, capabilities of the OS and the true cost associated with said choice.</p><p>Further a compatibility test suite should be developed, by which all OS' and their preinstalled applications should be subjected to. For example, the installed browsers (I really don't care which one) need to comply in full to a set of published web standards. The current test result status of the various offerings can easily be displayed on some web site for reference. Office Suites need to be *fully* compatible in regards to some base formats (OpenDocument lends itself nicely, as well as PDF) and rigorous testing needs to take place. If they fail to read/write/import a document from another standards-compliant suite without farking everything up, it should be tossed out as a possible default installation for OEM's and if installed anyway, the OEM sanctioned. Ditto for e-mail etc.</p><p>Only such enforced base-line measures could possibly make a real difference by requiring inter-operability standards regardless of OS and application and get rid of the mess we're in with monopoly abuses and vendor-lock-in etc..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as I am concerned , this is pretty much a non-issue .
If the EU intends to on creating a true-choice landscape ( which would n't be a bad thing ) they 'd go for the OEM 's by requiring them to have blank computers as default .
If Windows is desired by the customer , they should ship an extra-cost retail copy of it ( which would also take care of the recovery disk BS ) .
Likewise for any other OS ( Linux could be shipped on a simple CD if no retail box exists ) .
This would offer true choices as well in regards to wants and needs of the customer , capabilities of the OS and the true cost associated with said choice.Further a compatibility test suite should be developed , by which all OS ' and their preinstalled applications should be subjected to .
For example , the installed browsers ( I really do n't care which one ) need to comply in full to a set of published web standards .
The current test result status of the various offerings can easily be displayed on some web site for reference .
Office Suites need to be * fully * compatible in regards to some base formats ( OpenDocument lends itself nicely , as well as PDF ) and rigorous testing needs to take place .
If they fail to read/write/import a document from another standards-compliant suite without farking everything up , it should be tossed out as a possible default installation for OEM 's and if installed anyway , the OEM sanctioned .
Ditto for e-mail etc.Only such enforced base-line measures could possibly make a real difference by requiring inter-operability standards regardless of OS and application and get rid of the mess we 're in with monopoly abuses and vendor-lock-in etc. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as I am concerned, this is pretty much a non-issue.
If the EU intends to on creating a true-choice landscape (which wouldn't be a bad thing) they'd go for the OEM's by requiring them to have blank computers as default.
If Windows is desired by the customer, they should ship an extra-cost retail copy of it (which would also take care of the recovery disk BS).
Likewise for any other OS (Linux could be shipped on a simple CD if no retail box exists).
This would offer true choices as well in regards to wants and needs of the customer, capabilities of the OS and the true cost associated with said choice.Further a compatibility test suite should be developed, by which all OS' and their preinstalled applications should be subjected to.
For example, the installed browsers (I really don't care which one) need to comply in full to a set of published web standards.
The current test result status of the various offerings can easily be displayed on some web site for reference.
Office Suites need to be *fully* compatible in regards to some base formats (OpenDocument lends itself nicely, as well as PDF) and rigorous testing needs to take place.
If they fail to read/write/import a document from another standards-compliant suite without farking everything up, it should be tossed out as a possible default installation for OEM's and if installed anyway, the OEM sanctioned.
Ditto for e-mail etc.Only such enforced base-line measures could possibly make a real difference by requiring inter-operability standards regardless of OS and application and get rid of the mess we're in with monopoly abuses and vendor-lock-in etc..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28158435</id>
	<title>Not BUNDLING</title>
	<author>wap911</author>
	<datestamp>1243786800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is everyone going to realize that "bundling" in not the crux of the matter.<br>It is COMMINGLING THE CODE that is the problem.</p><p>MS has been doing that all along.<br>Do you need networking? No fine. Yes which one, Novell, MS, etc.</p><p>Do you need a brower? No, fine. Yes which one, MS, Firefox, Opera, [and 100 others]</p><p>This should be part of the install or desktop icons.</p><p>All of MS website should be W3 standards compliant and not rely on Exploder.  There is a monopoly violation, since I use Firefox.</p><p>REMOVE ALL code that is not essential to devices and presentation and let the customer decide what to have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is everyone going to realize that " bundling " in not the crux of the matter.It is COMMINGLING THE CODE that is the problem.MS has been doing that all along.Do you need networking ?
No fine .
Yes which one , Novell , MS , etc.Do you need a brower ?
No , fine .
Yes which one , MS , Firefox , Opera , [ and 100 others ] This should be part of the install or desktop icons.All of MS website should be W3 standards compliant and not rely on Exploder .
There is a monopoly violation , since I use Firefox.REMOVE ALL code that is not essential to devices and presentation and let the customer decide what to have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is everyone going to realize that "bundling" in not the crux of the matter.It is COMMINGLING THE CODE that is the problem.MS has been doing that all along.Do you need networking?
No fine.
Yes which one, Novell, MS, etc.Do you need a brower?
No, fine.
Yes which one, MS, Firefox, Opera, [and 100 others]This should be part of the install or desktop icons.All of MS website should be W3 standards compliant and not rely on Exploder.
There is a monopoly violation, since I use Firefox.REMOVE ALL code that is not essential to devices and presentation and let the customer decide what to have.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28158267</id>
	<title>Very bad law</title>
	<author>infonote</author>
	<datestamp>1243785360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is bad.
Let;s extend the same principle to everything then.
How about forcing car manufacturers to include an option to put a competitor's engine in the car.

E.g. Mercedes must provide an option where the user can put a BMW engine in the car.
In my opinion it makes not sense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is bad .
Let ; s extend the same principle to everything then .
How about forcing car manufacturers to include an option to put a competitor 's engine in the car .
E.g. Mercedes must provide an option where the user can put a BMW engine in the car .
In my opinion it makes not sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is bad.
Let;s extend the same principle to everything then.
How about forcing car manufacturers to include an option to put a competitor's engine in the car.
E.g. Mercedes must provide an option where the user can put a BMW engine in the car.
In my opinion it makes not sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152641</id>
	<title>Re:No fan of MS, but...</title>
	<author>impaledsunset</author>
	<datestamp>1243679640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nor am I a fan of market regulation, but I don't think that this is getting out of hand. Would you elaborate why do you think so?</p><p>I see forcing Microsoft to do this beneficial for everyone else. I also find it an acceptable given their monopoly status. It's the best solution to the problem. Forcing Microsoft to do this might look a bit excessive, but I don't think it is. If you believe so, try to tell us why.</p><p>I don't know, but the alternative is to force Microsoft not to include a browser at all, which would certainly hurt the users. So Microsoft are given the alternative to include other browsers instead. Sounds fair to me. The problem is that it doesn't matter how you could remove IE after installing another browser, only people already using an alternative browser would do it, Microsoft would still continue to leverage  IE market share by (ab)using their monopoly position just as well, until the users are presented with a direct choice. I'm not sure that this would help either. Microsoft would display the choice in a way that would make users click on IE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nor am I a fan of market regulation , but I do n't think that this is getting out of hand .
Would you elaborate why do you think so ? I see forcing Microsoft to do this beneficial for everyone else .
I also find it an acceptable given their monopoly status .
It 's the best solution to the problem .
Forcing Microsoft to do this might look a bit excessive , but I do n't think it is .
If you believe so , try to tell us why.I do n't know , but the alternative is to force Microsoft not to include a browser at all , which would certainly hurt the users .
So Microsoft are given the alternative to include other browsers instead .
Sounds fair to me .
The problem is that it does n't matter how you could remove IE after installing another browser , only people already using an alternative browser would do it , Microsoft would still continue to leverage IE market share by ( ab ) using their monopoly position just as well , until the users are presented with a direct choice .
I 'm not sure that this would help either .
Microsoft would display the choice in a way that would make users click on IE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nor am I a fan of market regulation, but I don't think that this is getting out of hand.
Would you elaborate why do you think so?I see forcing Microsoft to do this beneficial for everyone else.
I also find it an acceptable given their monopoly status.
It's the best solution to the problem.
Forcing Microsoft to do this might look a bit excessive, but I don't think it is.
If you believe so, try to tell us why.I don't know, but the alternative is to force Microsoft not to include a browser at all, which would certainly hurt the users.
So Microsoft are given the alternative to include other browsers instead.
Sounds fair to me.
The problem is that it doesn't matter how you could remove IE after installing another browser, only people already using an alternative browser would do it, Microsoft would still continue to leverage  IE market share by (ab)using their monopoly position just as well, until the users are presented with a direct choice.
I'm not sure that this would help either.
Microsoft would display the choice in a way that would make users click on IE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153477</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh... please include \_my\_ pet project too.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243685280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>fair enough, just make sure that it is standards compliant and interoperable and I'm game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>fair enough , just make sure that it is standards compliant and interoperable and I 'm game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fair enough, just make sure that it is standards compliant and interoperable and I'm game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153161</id>
	<title>Why the fuss?</title>
	<author>shish</author>
	<datestamp>1243682880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>OEMs pick an antivirus for their users: fine
<br>OEMs pick image organisers for their users: also fine
<br>OEMs pick ISP software for their users: no problem
<br>OEMs are given the opportunity to pick browsers for their users: *shitstorm*

<p>To me this looks like the media trolling for attention; in the real world OEMs will either bundle IE or IE + firefox, and no end user will notice any difference...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OEMs pick an antivirus for their users : fine OEMs pick image organisers for their users : also fine OEMs pick ISP software for their users : no problem OEMs are given the opportunity to pick browsers for their users : * shitstorm * To me this looks like the media trolling for attention ; in the real world OEMs will either bundle IE or IE + firefox , and no end user will notice any difference.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OEMs pick an antivirus for their users: fine
OEMs pick image organisers for their users: also fine
OEMs pick ISP software for their users: no problem
OEMs are given the opportunity to pick browsers for their users: *shitstorm*

To me this looks like the media trolling for attention; in the real world OEMs will either bundle IE or IE + firefox, and no end user will notice any difference...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28166081</id>
	<title>Re:Hm.</title>
	<author>hkmwbz</author>
	<datestamp>1243859520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How do they server this list to the user? Must be a webpage, Shirley?</p></div></blockquote><p>
Various Linux distributions have had package managers for years. No need for a webpage. Just a list of options.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do they server this list to the user ?
Must be a webpage , Shirley ?
Various Linux distributions have had package managers for years .
No need for a webpage .
Just a list of options .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do they server this list to the user?
Must be a webpage, Shirley?
Various Linux distributions have had package managers for years.
No need for a webpage.
Just a list of options.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152443</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152769</id>
	<title>YES!!! Please do it!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243680360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IE is a cheap software platform.</p><p>Microsoft controls the OEM's so they won't budge.</p><p>Take for instance my real estate friend, she wanted and bought a Mac without realizing Rapatonni is IE only.</p><p>Sure she's getting by with Citrix/IE, but it's a hassle and a security problem.</p><p>Why does Rappatoni depend on IE?, because it's cheaper than a full blown software package for each platform.</p><p>This needs to stop, by leveling the playing field of browsers, will increase other browser market share and force companies to quit depending on IE only.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IE is a cheap software platform.Microsoft controls the OEM 's so they wo n't budge.Take for instance my real estate friend , she wanted and bought a Mac without realizing Rapatonni is IE only.Sure she 's getting by with Citrix/IE , but it 's a hassle and a security problem.Why does Rappatoni depend on IE ? , because it 's cheaper than a full blown software package for each platform.This needs to stop , by leveling the playing field of browsers , will increase other browser market share and force companies to quit depending on IE only .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE is a cheap software platform.Microsoft controls the OEM's so they won't budge.Take for instance my real estate friend, she wanted and bought a Mac without realizing Rapatonni is IE only.Sure she's getting by with Citrix/IE, but it's a hassle and a security problem.Why does Rappatoni depend on IE?, because it's cheaper than a full blown software package for each platform.This needs to stop, by leveling the playing field of browsers, will increase other browser market share and force companies to quit depending on IE only.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152429</id>
	<title>They'll cock it up</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1243678320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All that needs to be done is make IE8 removable. Like completely removable, not just a "hide the icon" sort of uninstall and give OEMs the right to put whatever browser they want on their systems.
<br> <br>
Why bother fucking about with some sort of software that asks the user? There probably won't be any expectation of this ballot system giving the pros and cons of each browser so they'll just opt for the familiar IE they've always used.
<br> <br>
EU proves to be ineffective by being too late on doing something about this problem and picking a poor solution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All that needs to be done is make IE8 removable .
Like completely removable , not just a " hide the icon " sort of uninstall and give OEMs the right to put whatever browser they want on their systems .
Why bother fucking about with some sort of software that asks the user ?
There probably wo n't be any expectation of this ballot system giving the pros and cons of each browser so they 'll just opt for the familiar IE they 've always used .
EU proves to be ineffective by being too late on doing something about this problem and picking a poor solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All that needs to be done is make IE8 removable.
Like completely removable, not just a "hide the icon" sort of uninstall and give OEMs the right to put whatever browser they want on their systems.
Why bother fucking about with some sort of software that asks the user?
There probably won't be any expectation of this ballot system giving the pros and cons of each browser so they'll just opt for the familiar IE they've always used.
EU proves to be ineffective by being too late on doing something about this problem and picking a poor solution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28156549</id>
	<title>Monopolies and Market Dominant Companies</title>
	<author>prefec2</author>
	<datestamp>1243762260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the EU monopolies and market dominant companies are controlled by regulation agencies. These agencies ensure that the market still works even if a company gained dominance. They do this in the telecommunication sector, so big telcos like Deutsche Telekom, France Telecom have to open their nets. The same applies to electricity companies and of course to Microsoft, as they have a dominant position in the software sector.</p><p>In a function market situation, there would be no need to regulate MS. However, today they can corner the market. You either play by their rules or you don' t play. This dominance eradicates the positive effects of a market based economy. Therefore the EU has to act and regulate them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the EU monopolies and market dominant companies are controlled by regulation agencies .
These agencies ensure that the market still works even if a company gained dominance .
They do this in the telecommunication sector , so big telcos like Deutsche Telekom , France Telecom have to open their nets .
The same applies to electricity companies and of course to Microsoft , as they have a dominant position in the software sector.In a function market situation , there would be no need to regulate MS. However , today they can corner the market .
You either play by their rules or you don ' t play .
This dominance eradicates the positive effects of a market based economy .
Therefore the EU has to act and regulate them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the EU monopolies and market dominant companies are controlled by regulation agencies.
These agencies ensure that the market still works even if a company gained dominance.
They do this in the telecommunication sector, so big telcos like Deutsche Telekom, France Telecom have to open their nets.
The same applies to electricity companies and of course to Microsoft, as they have a dominant position in the software sector.In a function market situation, there would be no need to regulate MS. However, today they can corner the market.
You either play by their rules or you don' t play.
This dominance eradicates the positive effects of a market based economy.
Therefore the EU has to act and regulate them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28165845</id>
	<title>Oh please. Don't bring Milton Friedman into this.</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1243856700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you been asleep the last couple of years or what?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you been asleep the last couple of years or what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you been asleep the last couple of years or what?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152683</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152587</id>
	<title>WALL ST JOURNAL PAYWALL</title>
	<author>linhares</author>
	<datestamp>1243679160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>1. google for this: <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124362706194767281.html" title="wsj.com">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124362706194767281.html</a> [wsj.com]
2. click on 1st link
3. no paywall if you come from google</htmltext>
<tokenext>1. google for this : http : //online.wsj.com/article/SB124362706194767281.html [ wsj.com ] 2. click on 1st link 3. no paywall if you come from google</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1. google for this: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124362706194767281.html [wsj.com]
2. click on 1st link
3. no paywall if you come from google</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153101</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh... please include \_my\_ pet project too.</title>
	<author>99BottlesOfBeerInMyF</author>
	<datestamp>1243682460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...and that Microsoft has been known to 'embrace and extinguish'.</p></div><p>You do know that phrase originated with MS's internal discussions of illegally destroying Web browsers and Web technologies that might threaten them, right?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>HOWEVER, this knee-jerk reaction to the browser-wars is really fundamentally flawed.</p></div><p>What knee jerk reaction. MS undermined the free market in illegal ways. Is maybe that you just don't understand the logical reactions of people to the situation and thus brand them "kneejerk". That seems implied by your later failure to understand the issues of antitrust law.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I think it's time we realize that a music jukebox, dvd player, web browser, and text editor have become integral parts of an OS (per my definition).</p> </div><p>Is a telephone an integral part of a telephone network? Sure. That doesn't matter because it is also a separate market from telephone service which is why AT&amp;T can't require you to rent a telephone from them anymore, but must sell them separately from your wired connection. It's also the reason after a decade of stagnation we suddenly jumped forward and got push buttons, speed dial, and answering machines when AT&amp;T's monopoly abuse was stopped.</p><p>The browser was and is a separate market and we're quite likely to see the same rapid innovation to the benefit of everyone as soon as MS's antitrust abuse is stopped. The thing most Slashdotters can't seem to wrap their heads around is an economic issue of markets, not a technological issue.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> I say "rubbish. You might as well ask the user to choose different versions of the TCP stack, paint program, image libraries, and mouse drivers too."</p></div><p>Please do your research. We're talking about separate, preexisting markets. Of the things you mention, only the paint program applies under the law.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Go and get alternatives if you like, just as you're free to get another media player, paint program or ftp client.</p></div><p>Which does nothing to address the broken market or criminal acts or to improve innovation and lower costs. I have an idea, why don't you learn why antitrust laws exist before declaring them to be wrong?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't see noise directed against Apple or Linux or BSD, likely because they are {not monopolies | high enough in market share | something else that I can't grok}.</p> </div><p>I'll try to explain with an analogy. Murder is illegal. Firing a gun is legal. Firing a gun at a person in a way that murders them is illegal. Bundling is legal. Bundling in a way that undermines the free market is illegal. </p><p>In this analogy, only MS has a gun. Apple and Canonical can bundle browsers and OS's all they want because they don't even have to power undermine the market if they wanted to. Apple, on the other hand, is close to having sufficient power in the portable, digital music player market that the EU has looked into restricting them with regard to bundling things with iPods. Companies in the US and EU regularly consider antitrust issues when they have dominance in markets. The real difference here is not the way laws are applied, but that MS has so blatantly disregarded the laws everyone else obeys.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>This would suggest that the bundling of Safari on Mac, or Mozilla on Linux is not fundamentally wrong, and is also not wrong on Windows.</p></div><p>Hopefully from my previous comments you now understand that no one suggests bundling is fundamentally wrong. Undermining the free market is fundamentally wrong. Bundling in particular circumstances in ways that undermine markets is what is illegal and detrimental to society. </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Perhaps this is unfair to the hapless (as far as tech goes) politicians, but they seem little more than shills for lobbyists, and don't seem to really understand the dangerous precedent they might be setting.</p></div><p>Yeah, enforcing the same antitrust laws regulators have been enforcing for over a hundred years sure would be setting a precedent. If you don't agree with antitrust laws I suggest you study them, then come and tell us all why they are flawed and why your economic theory is superior.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...and that Microsoft has been known to 'embrace and extinguish'.You do know that phrase originated with MS 's internal discussions of illegally destroying Web browsers and Web technologies that might threaten them , right ? HOWEVER , this knee-jerk reaction to the browser-wars is really fundamentally flawed.What knee jerk reaction .
MS undermined the free market in illegal ways .
Is maybe that you just do n't understand the logical reactions of people to the situation and thus brand them " kneejerk " .
That seems implied by your later failure to understand the issues of antitrust law.I think it 's time we realize that a music jukebox , dvd player , web browser , and text editor have become integral parts of an OS ( per my definition ) .
Is a telephone an integral part of a telephone network ?
Sure. That does n't matter because it is also a separate market from telephone service which is why AT&amp;T ca n't require you to rent a telephone from them anymore , but must sell them separately from your wired connection .
It 's also the reason after a decade of stagnation we suddenly jumped forward and got push buttons , speed dial , and answering machines when AT&amp;T 's monopoly abuse was stopped.The browser was and is a separate market and we 're quite likely to see the same rapid innovation to the benefit of everyone as soon as MS 's antitrust abuse is stopped .
The thing most Slashdotters ca n't seem to wrap their heads around is an economic issue of markets , not a technological issue .
I say " rubbish .
You might as well ask the user to choose different versions of the TCP stack , paint program , image libraries , and mouse drivers too .
" Please do your research .
We 're talking about separate , preexisting markets .
Of the things you mention , only the paint program applies under the law.Go and get alternatives if you like , just as you 're free to get another media player , paint program or ftp client.Which does nothing to address the broken market or criminal acts or to improve innovation and lower costs .
I have an idea , why do n't you learn why antitrust laws exist before declaring them to be wrong ? I do n't see noise directed against Apple or Linux or BSD , likely because they are { not monopolies | high enough in market share | something else that I ca n't grok } .
I 'll try to explain with an analogy .
Murder is illegal .
Firing a gun is legal .
Firing a gun at a person in a way that murders them is illegal .
Bundling is legal .
Bundling in a way that undermines the free market is illegal .
In this analogy , only MS has a gun .
Apple and Canonical can bundle browsers and OS 's all they want because they do n't even have to power undermine the market if they wanted to .
Apple , on the other hand , is close to having sufficient power in the portable , digital music player market that the EU has looked into restricting them with regard to bundling things with iPods .
Companies in the US and EU regularly consider antitrust issues when they have dominance in markets .
The real difference here is not the way laws are applied , but that MS has so blatantly disregarded the laws everyone else obeys.This would suggest that the bundling of Safari on Mac , or Mozilla on Linux is not fundamentally wrong , and is also not wrong on Windows.Hopefully from my previous comments you now understand that no one suggests bundling is fundamentally wrong .
Undermining the free market is fundamentally wrong .
Bundling in particular circumstances in ways that undermine markets is what is illegal and detrimental to society .
Perhaps this is unfair to the hapless ( as far as tech goes ) politicians , but they seem little more than shills for lobbyists , and do n't seem to really understand the dangerous precedent they might be setting.Yeah , enforcing the same antitrust laws regulators have been enforcing for over a hundred years sure would be setting a precedent .
If you do n't agree with antitrust laws I suggest you study them , then come and tell us all why they are flawed and why your economic theory is superior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...and that Microsoft has been known to 'embrace and extinguish'.You do know that phrase originated with MS's internal discussions of illegally destroying Web browsers and Web technologies that might threaten them, right?HOWEVER, this knee-jerk reaction to the browser-wars is really fundamentally flawed.What knee jerk reaction.
MS undermined the free market in illegal ways.
Is maybe that you just don't understand the logical reactions of people to the situation and thus brand them "kneejerk".
That seems implied by your later failure to understand the issues of antitrust law.I think it's time we realize that a music jukebox, dvd player, web browser, and text editor have become integral parts of an OS (per my definition).
Is a telephone an integral part of a telephone network?
Sure. That doesn't matter because it is also a separate market from telephone service which is why AT&amp;T can't require you to rent a telephone from them anymore, but must sell them separately from your wired connection.
It's also the reason after a decade of stagnation we suddenly jumped forward and got push buttons, speed dial, and answering machines when AT&amp;T's monopoly abuse was stopped.The browser was and is a separate market and we're quite likely to see the same rapid innovation to the benefit of everyone as soon as MS's antitrust abuse is stopped.
The thing most Slashdotters can't seem to wrap their heads around is an economic issue of markets, not a technological issue.
I say "rubbish.
You might as well ask the user to choose different versions of the TCP stack, paint program, image libraries, and mouse drivers too.
"Please do your research.
We're talking about separate, preexisting markets.
Of the things you mention, only the paint program applies under the law.Go and get alternatives if you like, just as you're free to get another media player, paint program or ftp client.Which does nothing to address the broken market or criminal acts or to improve innovation and lower costs.
I have an idea, why don't you learn why antitrust laws exist before declaring them to be wrong?I don't see noise directed against Apple or Linux or BSD, likely because they are {not monopolies | high enough in market share | something else that I can't grok}.
I'll try to explain with an analogy.
Murder is illegal.
Firing a gun is legal.
Firing a gun at a person in a way that murders them is illegal.
Bundling is legal.
Bundling in a way that undermines the free market is illegal.
In this analogy, only MS has a gun.
Apple and Canonical can bundle browsers and OS's all they want because they don't even have to power undermine the market if they wanted to.
Apple, on the other hand, is close to having sufficient power in the portable, digital music player market that the EU has looked into restricting them with regard to bundling things with iPods.
Companies in the US and EU regularly consider antitrust issues when they have dominance in markets.
The real difference here is not the way laws are applied, but that MS has so blatantly disregarded the laws everyone else obeys.This would suggest that the bundling of Safari on Mac, or Mozilla on Linux is not fundamentally wrong, and is also not wrong on Windows.Hopefully from my previous comments you now understand that no one suggests bundling is fundamentally wrong.
Undermining the free market is fundamentally wrong.
Bundling in particular circumstances in ways that undermine markets is what is illegal and detrimental to society.
Perhaps this is unfair to the hapless (as far as tech goes) politicians, but they seem little more than shills for lobbyists, and don't seem to really understand the dangerous precedent they might be setting.Yeah, enforcing the same antitrust laws regulators have been enforcing for over a hundred years sure would be setting a precedent.
If you don't agree with antitrust laws I suggest you study them, then come and tell us all why they are flawed and why your economic theory is superior.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152751</id>
	<title>Re:This just cracks me up...</title>
	<author>99BottlesOfBeerInMyF</author>
	<datestamp>1243680240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...those other browsers are free so who cares if Windows users are forced to use IE?</p></div><p>I do, because I'd rather be able to develop to standards and I'd rather Web technologies could move forward again instead of being held back by one, dominant, least common denominator browser.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...those other browsers are free so who cares if Windows users are forced to use IE ? I do , because I 'd rather be able to develop to standards and I 'd rather Web technologies could move forward again instead of being held back by one , dominant , least common denominator browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...those other browsers are free so who cares if Windows users are forced to use IE?I do, because I'd rather be able to develop to standards and I'd rather Web technologies could move forward again instead of being held back by one, dominant, least common denominator browser.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28155519</id>
	<title>So bundling isn't the solution</title>
	<author>xswl0931</author>
	<datestamp>1243704180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the concern is standards, then it makes more sense for the EU to require IE to adopt standards than to enforce bundling.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the concern is standards , then it makes more sense for the EU to require IE to adopt standards than to enforce bundling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the concern is standards, then it makes more sense for the EU to require IE to adopt standards than to enforce bundling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28157097</id>
	<title>Re:The EU is still beating this dead horse?</title>
	<author>Antique Geekmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1243771080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Battles have been won and lost, but the browser wars continue. Or haven't you monitored the entry of Google and their "Chrome" browser into this space? And have you looked at the oddness happening to browsers on cell phones and PDA's?</p><p>The XP thing is to get you hooked, then upgrade you to Vista later when they drop support for XP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Battles have been won and lost , but the browser wars continue .
Or have n't you monitored the entry of Google and their " Chrome " browser into this space ?
And have you looked at the oddness happening to browsers on cell phones and PDA 's ? The XP thing is to get you hooked , then upgrade you to Vista later when they drop support for XP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Battles have been won and lost, but the browser wars continue.
Or haven't you monitored the entry of Google and their "Chrome" browser into this space?
And have you looked at the oddness happening to browsers on cell phones and PDA's?The XP thing is to get you hooked, then upgrade you to Vista later when they drop support for XP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152549</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152635</id>
	<title>For fuck's sake...</title>
	<author>Lord Bitman</author>
	<datestamp>1243679520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft wasn't doing anything wrong bundling IE in the 90's and they're not doing anything wrong now. Yeah, Microsoft sucks and is anti-competitive, but including basic functionality with their O.S. without including needless redundancy is \_NOT\_ evil, or even slightly unpleasant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft was n't doing anything wrong bundling IE in the 90 's and they 're not doing anything wrong now .
Yeah , Microsoft sucks and is anti-competitive , but including basic functionality with their O.S .
without including needless redundancy is \ _NOT \ _ evil , or even slightly unpleasant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft wasn't doing anything wrong bundling IE in the 90's and they're not doing anything wrong now.
Yeah, Microsoft sucks and is anti-competitive, but including basic functionality with their O.S.
without including needless redundancy is \_NOT\_ evil, or even slightly unpleasant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152715</id>
	<title>Re:Forcing OEMs?</title>
	<author>rliden</author>
	<datestamp>1243680000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed.  Not only is it impractical but I don't want to have to remove other browsers having them leave behind their registry entries and any other crap they don't want to clean up upon removal.</p><p>I like the current model in Windows 7 where I can install any browser I want to, and do, after initial installation.  I have the option to disable IE8 in the Windows Features menu, but it still leaves the base engine available for.NET apps and other Windows apps that call and rely on that engine for functionality.</p><p>Finally, I don't have a huge level of confidence in OEMs or their partners not configure Windows in a way that makes installing and using another browser a real pain in the ass.</p><p>Maybe this is all irrelevant to me because I live in the United States.  In any event I'm not very excited about what kind of precedent this could set or direction it could take us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
Not only is it impractical but I do n't want to have to remove other browsers having them leave behind their registry entries and any other crap they do n't want to clean up upon removal.I like the current model in Windows 7 where I can install any browser I want to , and do , after initial installation .
I have the option to disable IE8 in the Windows Features menu , but it still leaves the base engine available for.NET apps and other Windows apps that call and rely on that engine for functionality.Finally , I do n't have a huge level of confidence in OEMs or their partners not configure Windows in a way that makes installing and using another browser a real pain in the ass.Maybe this is all irrelevant to me because I live in the United States .
In any event I 'm not very excited about what kind of precedent this could set or direction it could take us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
Not only is it impractical but I don't want to have to remove other browsers having them leave behind their registry entries and any other crap they don't want to clean up upon removal.I like the current model in Windows 7 where I can install any browser I want to, and do, after initial installation.
I have the option to disable IE8 in the Windows Features menu, but it still leaves the base engine available for.NET apps and other Windows apps that call and rely on that engine for functionality.Finally, I don't have a huge level of confidence in OEMs or their partners not configure Windows in a way that makes installing and using another browser a real pain in the ass.Maybe this is all irrelevant to me because I live in the United States.
In any event I'm not very excited about what kind of precedent this could set or direction it could take us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152457</id>
	<title>Great....more crapware</title>
	<author>spiffydudex</author>
	<datestamp>1243678440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So now I'm going to have to waste another 3 minutes of my life uninstalling more shit, just so my grandma can use her new computer. All hail the mighty crapware.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So now I 'm going to have to waste another 3 minutes of my life uninstalling more shit , just so my grandma can use her new computer .
All hail the mighty crapware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So now I'm going to have to waste another 3 minutes of my life uninstalling more shit, just so my grandma can use her new computer.
All hail the mighty crapware.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28157861</id>
	<title>Re:Good?</title>
	<author>howlingmadhowie</author>
	<datestamp>1243781700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1/ astroturfing<br>
2/ hatred of the EU</htmltext>
<tokenext>1/ astroturfing 2/ hatred of the EU</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1/ astroturfing
2/ hatred of the EU</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153485</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28156689</id>
	<title>Re:Forcing OEMs?</title>
	<author>Blackhalo</author>
	<datestamp>1243764660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Microsoft's rules do not disallow OEMs bundling browsers."

Yeah, but you lose your OEM discount if you do.  Nothing like having to pay retail to ship Windows when your competitors do not have to.  Kind of like Intel giving preferences and access to the latest CPUs to Intel only shops.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Microsoft 's rules do not disallow OEMs bundling browsers .
" Yeah , but you lose your OEM discount if you do .
Nothing like having to pay retail to ship Windows when your competitors do not have to .
Kind of like Intel giving preferences and access to the latest CPUs to Intel only shops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Microsoft's rules do not disallow OEMs bundling browsers.
"

Yeah, but you lose your OEM discount if you do.
Nothing like having to pay retail to ship Windows when your competitors do not have to.
Kind of like Intel giving preferences and access to the latest CPUs to Intel only shops.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28158163</id>
	<title>Re:The EU is still beating this dead horse?</title>
	<author>Pentium100</author>
	<datestamp>1243784100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>because it's almost impossible to google "firefox" or "chrome" or "safari" or "opera" and download a new browser.</p></div><p>What is this "browser" you speak of? A fox? Why would I need it? I don't need a browser, I can just open the internet and go wherever I want.</p><p>Sorry, I went to a site that looks really bad, I'm gonna call them and complain that their site is broken. They also want me to use the fox? Ok, I'm taking my business to those, who know how to make good working sites. I don't really care if those sites do not work with the fox, since I don't use it and am part of the majority.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>In any case, you have to know there are alternatives before you can google them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>because it 's almost impossible to google " firefox " or " chrome " or " safari " or " opera " and download a new browser.What is this " browser " you speak of ?
A fox ?
Why would I need it ?
I do n't need a browser , I can just open the internet and go wherever I want.Sorry , I went to a site that looks really bad , I 'm gon na call them and complain that their site is broken .
They also want me to use the fox ?
Ok , I 'm taking my business to those , who know how to make good working sites .
I do n't really care if those sites do not work with the fox , since I do n't use it and am part of the majority .
...In any case , you have to know there are alternatives before you can google them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because it's almost impossible to google "firefox" or "chrome" or "safari" or "opera" and download a new browser.What is this "browser" you speak of?
A fox?
Why would I need it?
I don't need a browser, I can just open the internet and go wherever I want.Sorry, I went to a site that looks really bad, I'm gonna call them and complain that their site is broken.
They also want me to use the fox?
Ok, I'm taking my business to those, who know how to make good working sites.
I don't really care if those sites do not work with the fox, since I don't use it and am part of the majority.
...In any case, you have to know there are alternatives before you can google them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153071</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152373</id>
	<title>In a near future...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243678080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Windows will become itself a linux-like distribution, with hundreds of included, tested, and secure packages of several alternative tools for the same purpose. Think like Kubuntu, that comes with the KDE desktop, Konqueror as default browser and several more "by default" applications, but where you can install with a command alternate browsers, office suites, entire desktops, and so on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows will become itself a linux-like distribution , with hundreds of included , tested , and secure packages of several alternative tools for the same purpose .
Think like Kubuntu , that comes with the KDE desktop , Konqueror as default browser and several more " by default " applications , but where you can install with a command alternate browsers , office suites , entire desktops , and so on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows will become itself a linux-like distribution, with hundreds of included, tested, and secure packages of several alternative tools for the same purpose.
Think like Kubuntu, that comes with the KDE desktop, Konqueror as default browser and several more "by default" applications, but where you can install with a command alternate browsers, office suites, entire desktops, and so on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153615</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh... please include \_my\_ pet project too.</title>
	<author>Spike15</author>
	<datestamp>1243686180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fact that you correctly used curly brackets makes me wish I had mod points for you...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that you correctly used curly brackets makes me wish I had mod points for you.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that you correctly used curly brackets makes me wish I had mod points for you...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28156699</id>
	<title>Re:The EU is still beating this dead horse?</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1243764720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was expensive because people were willing to pay that much, thus they increased their margins massively...<br>Once they faced competition, prices came down significantly, yet they still make a huge profit because the actual cost is trivially low.</p><p>This is why competition is important, without it MS can charge what they like and consumers have no choice but to get screwed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was expensive because people were willing to pay that much , thus they increased their margins massively...Once they faced competition , prices came down significantly , yet they still make a huge profit because the actual cost is trivially low.This is why competition is important , without it MS can charge what they like and consumers have no choice but to get screwed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was expensive because people were willing to pay that much, thus they increased their margins massively...Once they faced competition, prices came down significantly, yet they still make a huge profit because the actual cost is trivially low.This is why competition is important, without it MS can charge what they like and consumers have no choice but to get screwed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152549</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152283</id>
	<title>That's not a fucking monopoly.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243677600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't force them to support other browsers, hell, they could <b>only</b> support internet explorer if they wanted to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't force them to support other browsers , hell , they could only support internet explorer if they wanted to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't force them to support other browsers, hell, they could only support internet explorer if they wanted to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153601</id>
	<title>Re:The EU is still beating this dead horse?</title>
	<author>Mordok-DestroyerOfWo</author>
	<datestamp>1243686060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So it's bad when it's expensive, but also bad when it's cheap?  Believe me, I'm as anti-Microsoft as 60\% of the posters in here, but complaining that my new car I bought in 2001 for $9,000 is now selling for $5,000 isn't all that logical.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So it 's bad when it 's expensive , but also bad when it 's cheap ?
Believe me , I 'm as anti-Microsoft as 60 \ % of the posters in here , but complaining that my new car I bought in 2001 for $ 9,000 is now selling for $ 5,000 is n't all that logical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So it's bad when it's expensive, but also bad when it's cheap?
Believe me, I'm as anti-Microsoft as 60\% of the posters in here, but complaining that my new car I bought in 2001 for $9,000 is now selling for $5,000 isn't all that logical.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152549</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152973</id>
	<title>This is not fair</title>
	<author>cybereal</author>
	<datestamp>1243681740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This whole "browser war" nonsense has gone on long enough.  Back when a browser was a novelty, perhaps even sold on the shelf at the store, maybe it made sense to worry about competition.  However, now that the browser is essential to everyday computing and part of the platform, the demands being made entirely idiotic.  It should not matter if people are given IE8 out of the gate or not.  I do agree that they should be able to disable or uninstall it if they feel it's a security problem.  However, forcing vendors to include other browsers is only slightly widening the selective controlled distribution and does not address any of the problems IE's dominance has caused in the first place.</p><p>Quite simply put, the reason IE is popular is because people do not care about which browser they use.  A small percentage does, and it seem this site is popular with that group but at this point, a browser is part of a platform as a steering wheel is part of a car.  Occasionally an enthusiast replaces his steering wheel but most people don't care about it.</p><p>But what does a steering wheel have in common with browsers besides being a platform staple?  They support standards.  The steering wheel is a standard interface, and while they do vary from car to car, they all support a common baseline of functionality and features.</p><p>So the real solution to this IE problem is not to force a company to support their competition.  No I vehemently disagree with that, it's simply wrong to force a company to collude with their competition.  Instead, the solution is to enforce IE's support of recognized standards.  If you truly wish to neuter Microsoft's control of the WWW, then limit them to implementing standards compliant browsing only, let the community and the market decide what that means, and then let people continue to make their own choices about browsers.</p><p>Frankly if you look at all platforms, not just personal computer platforms, you will see that they all include their own browser choice, whether it be a Linux based OS that includes firefox, or a smartphone that includes a webkit based browser like Nokia's S60 platform.  Macs include Safari, my Wii came with a free Opera download, my DSi came with a free opera download, and my PS3 includes a browser based on the same tech they use for their feature cell phones.</p><p>So targeting microsoft just because this mattered 10 years ago is pretty ridiculous, especially when you're failing to target the real problem in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This whole " browser war " nonsense has gone on long enough .
Back when a browser was a novelty , perhaps even sold on the shelf at the store , maybe it made sense to worry about competition .
However , now that the browser is essential to everyday computing and part of the platform , the demands being made entirely idiotic .
It should not matter if people are given IE8 out of the gate or not .
I do agree that they should be able to disable or uninstall it if they feel it 's a security problem .
However , forcing vendors to include other browsers is only slightly widening the selective controlled distribution and does not address any of the problems IE 's dominance has caused in the first place.Quite simply put , the reason IE is popular is because people do not care about which browser they use .
A small percentage does , and it seem this site is popular with that group but at this point , a browser is part of a platform as a steering wheel is part of a car .
Occasionally an enthusiast replaces his steering wheel but most people do n't care about it.But what does a steering wheel have in common with browsers besides being a platform staple ?
They support standards .
The steering wheel is a standard interface , and while they do vary from car to car , they all support a common baseline of functionality and features.So the real solution to this IE problem is not to force a company to support their competition .
No I vehemently disagree with that , it 's simply wrong to force a company to collude with their competition .
Instead , the solution is to enforce IE 's support of recognized standards .
If you truly wish to neuter Microsoft 's control of the WWW , then limit them to implementing standards compliant browsing only , let the community and the market decide what that means , and then let people continue to make their own choices about browsers.Frankly if you look at all platforms , not just personal computer platforms , you will see that they all include their own browser choice , whether it be a Linux based OS that includes firefox , or a smartphone that includes a webkit based browser like Nokia 's S60 platform .
Macs include Safari , my Wii came with a free Opera download , my DSi came with a free opera download , and my PS3 includes a browser based on the same tech they use for their feature cell phones.So targeting microsoft just because this mattered 10 years ago is pretty ridiculous , especially when you 're failing to target the real problem in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This whole "browser war" nonsense has gone on long enough.
Back when a browser was a novelty, perhaps even sold on the shelf at the store, maybe it made sense to worry about competition.
However, now that the browser is essential to everyday computing and part of the platform, the demands being made entirely idiotic.
It should not matter if people are given IE8 out of the gate or not.
I do agree that they should be able to disable or uninstall it if they feel it's a security problem.
However, forcing vendors to include other browsers is only slightly widening the selective controlled distribution and does not address any of the problems IE's dominance has caused in the first place.Quite simply put, the reason IE is popular is because people do not care about which browser they use.
A small percentage does, and it seem this site is popular with that group but at this point, a browser is part of a platform as a steering wheel is part of a car.
Occasionally an enthusiast replaces his steering wheel but most people don't care about it.But what does a steering wheel have in common with browsers besides being a platform staple?
They support standards.
The steering wheel is a standard interface, and while they do vary from car to car, they all support a common baseline of functionality and features.So the real solution to this IE problem is not to force a company to support their competition.
No I vehemently disagree with that, it's simply wrong to force a company to collude with their competition.
Instead, the solution is to enforce IE's support of recognized standards.
If you truly wish to neuter Microsoft's control of the WWW, then limit them to implementing standards compliant browsing only, let the community and the market decide what that means, and then let people continue to make their own choices about browsers.Frankly if you look at all platforms, not just personal computer platforms, you will see that they all include their own browser choice, whether it be a Linux based OS that includes firefox, or a smartphone that includes a webkit based browser like Nokia's S60 platform.
Macs include Safari, my Wii came with a free Opera download, my DSi came with a free opera download, and my PS3 includes a browser based on the same tech they use for their feature cell phones.So targeting microsoft just because this mattered 10 years ago is pretty ridiculous, especially when you're failing to target the real problem in the first place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153453</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh... please include \_my\_ pet project too.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243685100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, ubuntu always uses a Mozilla browser, but plenty of Gnome desktops use Epiphany, and most every KDE uses Konqueror. Same applies to BSD. Yes, the Safari bundling is as bad as  the IE bundling, but Mac doesn't have a supposed 89\% market share of desktops.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , ubuntu always uses a Mozilla browser , but plenty of Gnome desktops use Epiphany , and most every KDE uses Konqueror .
Same applies to BSD .
Yes , the Safari bundling is as bad as the IE bundling , but Mac does n't have a supposed 89 \ % market share of desktops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, ubuntu always uses a Mozilla browser, but plenty of Gnome desktops use Epiphany, and most every KDE uses Konqueror.
Same applies to BSD.
Yes, the Safari bundling is as bad as  the IE bundling, but Mac doesn't have a supposed 89\% market share of desktops.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28154007</id>
	<title>I think that this is great</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243688940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone knows that the reason the majority of (non-technical) users don't change their browser is that they never see a need to change from IE, or don't even understand what a browser is. (Then there's the millions of corporate machines still running IE6, but we won't go there). This leaves a (thankfully shrinking) majority of net users using the least standards compliant browser, which probably would have less users than Opera if it wasn't bundled with Windows.</p><p>A pop-up box that lets you choose between IE, Firefox, Chrome, Opera and Safari will massively increase the market share of the other players, and the average user will soon learn that IE is really not that great. Hopefully, the real achievement of this scheme will be to force MSFT to create a solid, standards compliant browser. To their credit, they're already starting to move in this direction, but it'll take some actual free market competition to really push this along. I can't wait.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone knows that the reason the majority of ( non-technical ) users do n't change their browser is that they never see a need to change from IE , or do n't even understand what a browser is .
( Then there 's the millions of corporate machines still running IE6 , but we wo n't go there ) .
This leaves a ( thankfully shrinking ) majority of net users using the least standards compliant browser , which probably would have less users than Opera if it was n't bundled with Windows.A pop-up box that lets you choose between IE , Firefox , Chrome , Opera and Safari will massively increase the market share of the other players , and the average user will soon learn that IE is really not that great .
Hopefully , the real achievement of this scheme will be to force MSFT to create a solid , standards compliant browser .
To their credit , they 're already starting to move in this direction , but it 'll take some actual free market competition to really push this along .
I ca n't wait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone knows that the reason the majority of (non-technical) users don't change their browser is that they never see a need to change from IE, or don't even understand what a browser is.
(Then there's the millions of corporate machines still running IE6, but we won't go there).
This leaves a (thankfully shrinking) majority of net users using the least standards compliant browser, which probably would have less users than Opera if it wasn't bundled with Windows.A pop-up box that lets you choose between IE, Firefox, Chrome, Opera and Safari will massively increase the market share of the other players, and the average user will soon learn that IE is really not that great.
Hopefully, the real achievement of this scheme will be to force MSFT to create a solid, standards compliant browser.
To their credit, they're already starting to move in this direction, but it'll take some actual free market competition to really push this along.
I can't wait.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28160407</id>
	<title>Re:For fuck's sake...</title>
	<author>RightSaidFred99</author>
	<datestamp>1243801980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Breaking antitrust law, huh?  Can you show me the specific law which prevents anything MS did?  Of course you can't, the "law" isn't a law but an excuse to go on a fishing expedition.  The government and regulatory bodies can decide, after the fact, that some action falls afoul of "the law" based purely on subjective interpretation of very loose guidelines.  More accurately, there is no way for a corporation to know at the time it does something whether its actions will be deemed, ex post facto, illegal at a later date.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Breaking antitrust law , huh ?
Can you show me the specific law which prevents anything MS did ?
Of course you ca n't , the " law " is n't a law but an excuse to go on a fishing expedition .
The government and regulatory bodies can decide , after the fact , that some action falls afoul of " the law " based purely on subjective interpretation of very loose guidelines .
More accurately , there is no way for a corporation to know at the time it does something whether its actions will be deemed , ex post facto , illegal at a later date .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Breaking antitrust law, huh?
Can you show me the specific law which prevents anything MS did?
Of course you can't, the "law" isn't a law but an excuse to go on a fishing expedition.
The government and regulatory bodies can decide, after the fact, that some action falls afoul of "the law" based purely on subjective interpretation of very loose guidelines.
More accurately, there is no way for a corporation to know at the time it does something whether its actions will be deemed, ex post facto, illegal at a later date.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28154167</id>
	<title>Hermetically sealed boxes</title>
	<author>osymandias</author>
	<datestamp>1243690320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't help but feel that this isn't so much about fairness and more about penalising Microsoft. When you look at Apple, which not only bundles the browser with the OS, but the hardware, and has it against the T&amp;Cs that you can't install the OS on anything else, Microsoft's browser bundling really seems like a bit of a non-issue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't help but feel that this is n't so much about fairness and more about penalising Microsoft .
When you look at Apple , which not only bundles the browser with the OS , but the hardware , and has it against the T&amp;Cs that you ca n't install the OS on anything else , Microsoft 's browser bundling really seems like a bit of a non-issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't help but feel that this isn't so much about fairness and more about penalising Microsoft.
When you look at Apple, which not only bundles the browser with the OS, but the hardware, and has it against the T&amp;Cs that you can't install the OS on anything else, Microsoft's browser bundling really seems like a bit of a non-issue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28165937</id>
	<title>Re:A quick history</title>
	<author>hkmwbz</author>
	<datestamp>1243857660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I swear IT folks have shorter memories than even the average American retard.</p></div></blockquote><p>
You talk about short memories, and yet you seem to have forgotten about Microsoft's business practices?</p><blockquote><div><p>Firefox 2 and up is great. But that was only a few years back.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Exactly. It took a non-profit relying on donations and free labor to even make a dent in Microsoft's illegal grip on the market. If Microsoft hadn't broken the law, the browser market could have been much bigger by now, and the web much more mature.</p><blockquote><div><p>At the end of the day I think we are moving away from the browser.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Actually, in case you didn't notice, we are moving <i>towards</i> the browser. Most applications people use today are used through the browser.</p><blockquote><div><p>This is a just a futile effort by the EU.</p></div></blockquote><p>
A futile effort to enforce their own laws? Right. "The robberer will be dead in 30 years, so why bother throwing him in jail?"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I swear IT folks have shorter memories than even the average American retard .
You talk about short memories , and yet you seem to have forgotten about Microsoft 's business practices ? Firefox 2 and up is great .
But that was only a few years back .
Exactly. It took a non-profit relying on donations and free labor to even make a dent in Microsoft 's illegal grip on the market .
If Microsoft had n't broken the law , the browser market could have been much bigger by now , and the web much more mature.At the end of the day I think we are moving away from the browser .
Actually , in case you did n't notice , we are moving towards the browser .
Most applications people use today are used through the browser.This is a just a futile effort by the EU .
A futile effort to enforce their own laws ?
Right. " The robberer will be dead in 30 years , so why bother throwing him in jail ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I swear IT folks have shorter memories than even the average American retard.
You talk about short memories, and yet you seem to have forgotten about Microsoft's business practices?Firefox 2 and up is great.
But that was only a few years back.
Exactly. It took a non-profit relying on donations and free labor to even make a dent in Microsoft's illegal grip on the market.
If Microsoft hadn't broken the law, the browser market could have been much bigger by now, and the web much more mature.At the end of the day I think we are moving away from the browser.
Actually, in case you didn't notice, we are moving towards the browser.
Most applications people use today are used through the browser.This is a just a futile effort by the EU.
A futile effort to enforce their own laws?
Right. "The robberer will be dead in 30 years, so why bother throwing him in jail?
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153071</id>
	<title>Re:The EU is still beating this dead horse?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243682340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>because it's almost impossible to google "firefox" or "chrome" or "safari" or "opera" and download a new browser.</p><p>I don't think I've used IE since about 2001.  If Microsoft wants to bundle their browser, I don't see how it hurts anyone.  That's not to say Microsoft doesn't engage in monopolistic practices.  They do, obviously, or they wouldn't have justice departments (and their equivalents) all over the world busting them all the time.  But I've always been a bit puzzled about why the bundling of IE was considered to be among their primary sins.</p><p>I still believe, too, that MS should be forced to spin off their consumer electronics division.  Same with Apple.  Big corporations don't do any of us any good, and usually do a lot of harm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>because it 's almost impossible to google " firefox " or " chrome " or " safari " or " opera " and download a new browser.I do n't think I 've used IE since about 2001 .
If Microsoft wants to bundle their browser , I do n't see how it hurts anyone .
That 's not to say Microsoft does n't engage in monopolistic practices .
They do , obviously , or they would n't have justice departments ( and their equivalents ) all over the world busting them all the time .
But I 've always been a bit puzzled about why the bundling of IE was considered to be among their primary sins.I still believe , too , that MS should be forced to spin off their consumer electronics division .
Same with Apple .
Big corporations do n't do any of us any good , and usually do a lot of harm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because it's almost impossible to google "firefox" or "chrome" or "safari" or "opera" and download a new browser.I don't think I've used IE since about 2001.
If Microsoft wants to bundle their browser, I don't see how it hurts anyone.
That's not to say Microsoft doesn't engage in monopolistic practices.
They do, obviously, or they wouldn't have justice departments (and their equivalents) all over the world busting them all the time.
But I've always been a bit puzzled about why the bundling of IE was considered to be among their primary sins.I still believe, too, that MS should be forced to spin off their consumer electronics division.
Same with Apple.
Big corporations don't do any of us any good, and usually do a lot of harm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28155397</id>
	<title>Re:The EU is still beating this dead horse?</title>
	<author>Com2Kid</author>
	<datestamp>1243702860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's called competition.</p><p>It is supposed to drop prices, that is the entire point.</p><p>Why does Apple make over $200 in pure profit per iPhone sold?  Simple: No decent competitors.  When some good competition comes along, Apple will have to drop their price if they want to maintain market share, or they could take the iPhone the same route they took their Desktop machines and make them high-end only.</p><p>Its called capitalism.  Holy crap, its working!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called competition.It is supposed to drop prices , that is the entire point.Why does Apple make over $ 200 in pure profit per iPhone sold ?
Simple : No decent competitors .
When some good competition comes along , Apple will have to drop their price if they want to maintain market share , or they could take the iPhone the same route they took their Desktop machines and make them high-end only.Its called capitalism .
Holy crap , its working !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called competition.It is supposed to drop prices, that is the entire point.Why does Apple make over $200 in pure profit per iPhone sold?
Simple: No decent competitors.
When some good competition comes along, Apple will have to drop their price if they want to maintain market share, or they could take the iPhone the same route they took their Desktop machines and make them high-end only.Its called capitalism.
Holy crap, its working!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152549</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28161303</id>
	<title>F.U.</title>
	<author>z-j-y</author>
	<datestamp>1243765740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>EU is more like FU, or Fascist Union. Enjoy your involuntary freedom and unified choice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>EU is more like FU , or Fascist Union .
Enjoy your involuntary freedom and unified choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>EU is more like FU, or Fascist Union.
Enjoy your involuntary freedom and unified choice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152577</id>
	<title>Re:This just cracks me up...</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1243679160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>those other browsers are free so who cares if Windows users are forced to use IE?</p></div><p>Maybe the makers of browsers which aren't free?  It would at least let people know that alternatives exist and that the "blue E" isn't "the internet"<br>
And, as Microsoft is so want to say:  Free == bad, so IE must really suck.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>those other browsers are free so who cares if Windows users are forced to use IE ? Maybe the makers of browsers which are n't free ?
It would at least let people know that alternatives exist and that the " blue E " is n't " the internet " And , as Microsoft is so want to say : Free = = bad , so IE must really suck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>those other browsers are free so who cares if Windows users are forced to use IE?Maybe the makers of browsers which aren't free?
It would at least let people know that alternatives exist and that the "blue E" isn't "the internet"
And, as Microsoft is so want to say:  Free == bad, so IE must really suck.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28154015</id>
	<title>Re:Hm.</title>
	<author>HillBilly</author>
	<datestamp>1243689060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There will be a screen showing trusted MS software. Then you would have to tick a little box to see non-trusted other software and a big disclaimer screen about malware, virii and the like.</p><p>Thats how I imagine it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There will be a screen showing trusted MS software .
Then you would have to tick a little box to see non-trusted other software and a big disclaimer screen about malware , virii and the like.Thats how I imagine it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There will be a screen showing trusted MS software.
Then you would have to tick a little box to see non-trusted other software and a big disclaimer screen about malware, virii and the like.Thats how I imagine it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152443</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28157353</id>
	<title>Re:The EU is still beating this dead horse?</title>
	<author>MtViewGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1243775100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only thing it will do is make Microsoft create a special install version of Windows 7 that will <i>ask</i> you to decide what brand of web browser program you will install and use as your primary default. I see on a new machine with Windows 7 already pre-installed at the factory, if you insist on Internet Explorer 8.0 the final install will go straight through, while if you install Firefox or Opera as the default you will be asked to put back in the Windows 7 install DVD to copy over and install the non-MIcrosoft web browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only thing it will do is make Microsoft create a special install version of Windows 7 that will ask you to decide what brand of web browser program you will install and use as your primary default .
I see on a new machine with Windows 7 already pre-installed at the factory , if you insist on Internet Explorer 8.0 the final install will go straight through , while if you install Firefox or Opera as the default you will be asked to put back in the Windows 7 install DVD to copy over and install the non-MIcrosoft web browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only thing it will do is make Microsoft create a special install version of Windows 7 that will ask you to decide what brand of web browser program you will install and use as your primary default.
I see on a new machine with Windows 7 already pre-installed at the factory, if you insist on Internet Explorer 8.0 the final install will go straight through, while if you install Firefox or Opera as the default you will be asked to put back in the Windows 7 install DVD to copy over and install the non-MIcrosoft web browser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153587</id>
	<title>Re:This is not fair</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1243686000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>people do not care about which browser they use. A small percentage does, and it seem this site is popular with that group but at this point, a browser is part of a platform as a steering wheel is part of a car. Occasionally an enthusiast replaces his steering wheel but most people don't care about it.</p></div><p>So how come in many european countries IE usage is below 50\%?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>people do not care about which browser they use .
A small percentage does , and it seem this site is popular with that group but at this point , a browser is part of a platform as a steering wheel is part of a car .
Occasionally an enthusiast replaces his steering wheel but most people do n't care about it.So how come in many european countries IE usage is below 50 \ % ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>people do not care about which browser they use.
A small percentage does, and it seem this site is popular with that group but at this point, a browser is part of a platform as a steering wheel is part of a car.
Occasionally an enthusiast replaces his steering wheel but most people don't care about it.So how come in many european countries IE usage is below 50\%?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152973</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28160211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153477
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28185005
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28156497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28154301
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28157861
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28155519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153453
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153225
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28161299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28156899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152705
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28160305
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28157349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28165897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28154885
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152587
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153253
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28166093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153101
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153967
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28154873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153587
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152805
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28156075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153031
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28166047
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152657
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28158163
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28157029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153145
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153055
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28157353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28156719
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28158281
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153205
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28156773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28166551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28158779
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28160147
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153155
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28155757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28166081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152549
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28155623
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28165937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28157423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28165877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28165845
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28156133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28157019
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152577
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28157221
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152549
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28156699
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28165849
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28155551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152549
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28155397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28160407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28166133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28160619
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28154015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28166031
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152699
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28165839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28156321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28156689
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28165949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152549
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28157097
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28156731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153331
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28156915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_2011248_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28157081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_2011248.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28158267
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_2011248.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152429
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28166093
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152591
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28161299
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152657
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28155551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28165839
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28160619
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_2011248.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28154387
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_2011248.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152989
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28166031
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28158779
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28157349
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28165949
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_2011248.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153593
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_2011248.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152663
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_2011248.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28156549
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_2011248.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152833
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28156133
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28165877
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_2011248.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152907
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153055
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_2011248.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28157075
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_2011248.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152973
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28165897
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28156321
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153587
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28156497
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_2011248.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152373
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28155623
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28157423
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_2011248.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153525
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28166047
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28165937
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_2011248.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152635
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153247
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28160407
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28166133
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153253
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153193
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28185005
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_2011248.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152285
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153411
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153225
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152751
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28155757
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28155519
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28156899
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152595
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153895
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28166551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152705
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28160305
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152721
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152577
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_2011248.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152683
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28165845
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_2011248.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28154211
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_2011248.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152457
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_2011248.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152525
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_2011248.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153161
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_2011248.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152287
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28157353
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152549
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28156699
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153601
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28157097
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28155397
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153071
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28158163
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28158281
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_2011248.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152309
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153155
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153967
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_2011248.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153315
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_2011248.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152283
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152895
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28154873
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153591
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152831
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152587
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_2011248.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152815
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153031
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_2011248.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153455
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28160211
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28157221
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_2011248.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152307
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152389
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28156689
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153205
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152699
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152961
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28156773
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28160147
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28156915
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152903
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152715
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_2011248.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28154171
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_2011248.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152731
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28154885
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28156719
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28156731
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28157081
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_2011248.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152297
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153219
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152967
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153331
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152641
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28154301
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_2011248.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152443
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28154015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28166081
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28156075
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28157019
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152897
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28157029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152805
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153145
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_2011248.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152953
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_2011248.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28152719
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153615
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153101
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28165849
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153477
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153453
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_2011248.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28153485
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_2011248.28157861
</commentlist>
</conversation>
