<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_09_198205</id>
	<title>Ray Ozzie Calls Google Wave "Anti-Web"</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1244536800000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.tropicalcoder.com/" rel="nofollow">TropicalCoder</a> writes <i>"Ray Ozzie <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/08/ozzie\_google\_wave/">says that Google Wave is 'anti-Web,'</a> by which he seems to mean that it is too complex for its own good. In the video he <a href="http://techpulse360.com/2009/06/05/ray-ozzie-interview-at-the-churchill-club-videos/">complains about its complexity</a> in relation to <a href="https://www.mesh.com/welcome/default.aspx">Microsoft's Live Mesh</a>: 'If you have something, that by its very nature is very complex, with many goals... then you need open source to have many instances of it because nobody will be able to do an independent implementation of it.' That's its weakness to Ozzie, apparently &mdash; that this complexity that can only be overcome by open source. While he heaps high praise on the Google team that came up with this, he feels that the advantage of Microsoft's approach is that '...by decomposing things to be simpler, you don't need open source.' The Register's author summarizes it like this: 'In a way, this is classic Microsoft meets what is emerging as classic Google. Microsoft gives you an integrated stack but all the moving parts are anchored on a single company's vision. Google frees you to work out the bits yourself, but you must rely on your own smarts or those of your chosen tools.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>TropicalCoder writes " Ray Ozzie says that Google Wave is 'anti-Web, ' by which he seems to mean that it is too complex for its own good .
In the video he complains about its complexity in relation to Microsoft 's Live Mesh : 'If you have something , that by its very nature is very complex , with many goals... then you need open source to have many instances of it because nobody will be able to do an independent implementation of it .
' That 's its weakness to Ozzie , apparently    that this complexity that can only be overcome by open source .
While he heaps high praise on the Google team that came up with this , he feels that the advantage of Microsoft 's approach is that '...by decomposing things to be simpler , you do n't need open source .
' The Register 's author summarizes it like this : 'In a way , this is classic Microsoft meets what is emerging as classic Google .
Microsoft gives you an integrated stack but all the moving parts are anchored on a single company 's vision .
Google frees you to work out the bits yourself , but you must rely on your own smarts or those of your chosen tools .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TropicalCoder writes "Ray Ozzie says that Google Wave is 'anti-Web,' by which he seems to mean that it is too complex for its own good.
In the video he complains about its complexity in relation to Microsoft's Live Mesh: 'If you have something, that by its very nature is very complex, with many goals... then you need open source to have many instances of it because nobody will be able to do an independent implementation of it.
' That's its weakness to Ozzie, apparently — that this complexity that can only be overcome by open source.
While he heaps high praise on the Google team that came up with this, he feels that the advantage of Microsoft's approach is that '...by decomposing things to be simpler, you don't need open source.
' The Register's author summarizes it like this: 'In a way, this is classic Microsoft meets what is emerging as classic Google.
Microsoft gives you an integrated stack but all the moving parts are anchored on a single company's vision.
Google frees you to work out the bits yourself, but you must rely on your own smarts or those of your chosen tools.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271583</id>
	<title>Quel Suprise.</title>
	<author>senorpoco</author>
	<datestamp>1244541840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>In other News, Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer issued a joint statement saying "in their independent opinion as leading figures in the software industry, Live Mesh kicks Wave's ass."</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other News , Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer issued a joint statement saying " in their independent opinion as leading figures in the software industry , Live Mesh kicks Wave 's ass .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other News, Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer issued a joint statement saying "in their independent opinion as leading figures in the software industry, Live Mesh kicks Wave's ass.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271425</id>
	<title>In other news:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244541060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ford employee says the new BMW M3 is an okay car if all you care about are speed, style, and reliability, but if are cheap and want something to compliment your "awsome mullett" (sic) then a Ford Mustang is really your only choice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ford employee says the new BMW M3 is an okay car if all you care about are speed , style , and reliability , but if are cheap and want something to compliment your " awsome mullett " ( sic ) then a Ford Mustang is really your only choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ford employee says the new BMW M3 is an okay car if all you care about are speed, style, and reliability, but if are cheap and want something to compliment your "awsome mullett" (sic) then a Ford Mustang is really your only choice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271965</id>
	<title>Re:Ray Ozzie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244543700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So I was wondering who Ray Ozzie is</p></div><p>I suggest you go read up on Ray Ozzie's contributions to computing. He's more than "a software architect for Microsoft." Here's a starting place: http://tinyurl.com/mgee5r</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I was wondering who Ray Ozzie isI suggest you go read up on Ray Ozzie 's contributions to computing .
He 's more than " a software architect for Microsoft .
" Here 's a starting place : http : //tinyurl.com/mgee5r</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I was wondering who Ray Ozzie isI suggest you go read up on Ray Ozzie's contributions to computing.
He's more than "a software architect for Microsoft.
" Here's a starting place: http://tinyurl.com/mgee5r
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271359</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272455</id>
	<title>Re:Google's quantum leap</title>
	<author>Seriousity</author>
	<datestamp>1244546580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure, this article is a total astroturf, but your post still sounds like an advertisement<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , this article is a total astroturf , but your post still sounds like an advertisement ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, this article is a total astroturf, but your post still sounds like an advertisement ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28273087</id>
	<title>Re:Even a stopped clock can tell the right time</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1244550420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I remember hearing a while back that searching for Linux with the MS search engine produced thousands of results while searching the same term on Google produced tens of millions of hits.</p></div><p>If you put linux into the search box in Bing (without pressing anything), it suggests things like "microsoft linux", "linux vista".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember hearing a while back that searching for Linux with the MS search engine produced thousands of results while searching the same term on Google produced tens of millions of hits.If you put linux into the search box in Bing ( without pressing anything ) , it suggests things like " microsoft linux " , " linux vista " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember hearing a while back that searching for Linux with the MS search engine produced thousands of results while searching the same term on Google produced tens of millions of hits.If you put linux into the search box in Bing (without pressing anything), it suggests things like "microsoft linux", "linux vista".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272461</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28273899</id>
	<title>Re:Ray Ozzie</title>
	<author>ishobo</author>
	<datestamp>1244556720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have no idea what Notes was if you think it only applies to email.</p><p>Notes was a document, workflow and collaboration system, what is now known as Domino while the client has continued to called Notes. This is long before SMTP and IMAP where in widespread use, where proprietary mail systems ruled the land. The main criticism and bad reputation of Notes/Domino has always been email not its other functionality for which Ozzie was the father.</p><p>In essence, Wave is Notes, 20 years later. Notes was ahead of its time and a pleasure to use. In fact, Exchange was Microsoft attempt at a Notes killer. I was working at cc:mail in the early 90s and we were all wondering if Microsoft could pull it off. Unfortunately, it never approached the main selling points: document, workflow, and collaboration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have no idea what Notes was if you think it only applies to email.Notes was a document , workflow and collaboration system , what is now known as Domino while the client has continued to called Notes .
This is long before SMTP and IMAP where in widespread use , where proprietary mail systems ruled the land .
The main criticism and bad reputation of Notes/Domino has always been email not its other functionality for which Ozzie was the father.In essence , Wave is Notes , 20 years later .
Notes was ahead of its time and a pleasure to use .
In fact , Exchange was Microsoft attempt at a Notes killer .
I was working at cc : mail in the early 90s and we were all wondering if Microsoft could pull it off .
Unfortunately , it never approached the main selling points : document , workflow , and collaboration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have no idea what Notes was if you think it only applies to email.Notes was a document, workflow and collaboration system, what is now known as Domino while the client has continued to called Notes.
This is long before SMTP and IMAP where in widespread use, where proprietary mail systems ruled the land.
The main criticism and bad reputation of Notes/Domino has always been email not its other functionality for which Ozzie was the father.In essence, Wave is Notes, 20 years later.
Notes was ahead of its time and a pleasure to use.
In fact, Exchange was Microsoft attempt at a Notes killer.
I was working at cc:mail in the early 90s and we were all wondering if Microsoft could pull it off.
Unfortunately, it never approached the main selling points: document, workflow, and collaboration.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28275411</id>
	<title>Re:The current web is too complex</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1244570100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's 7 different text-based (aka "simple") languages/syntaxes a developer has to learn just to be able just to get the same basic functionality as a simple desktop application. The current system as it is isn't simple.</p></div><p>Your desktop application is, of course, written in Magic Language that abstracts away all details of MVC and a relational database so that you only have to learn one specific language/syntax.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's 7 different text-based ( aka " simple " ) languages/syntaxes a developer has to learn just to be able just to get the same basic functionality as a simple desktop application .
The current system as it is is n't simple.Your desktop application is , of course , written in Magic Language that abstracts away all details of MVC and a relational database so that you only have to learn one specific language/syntax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's 7 different text-based (aka "simple") languages/syntaxes a developer has to learn just to be able just to get the same basic functionality as a simple desktop application.
The current system as it is isn't simple.Your desktop application is, of course, written in Magic Language that abstracts away all details of MVC and a relational database so that you only have to learn one specific language/syntax.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28276159</id>
	<title>Re:The current web is too complex</title>
	<author>Will.Woodhull</author>
	<datestamp>1244577060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's seven different guys collaborating, each focusing on doing a good job on his own piece, and the whole thing coming together in standardized ways. Viva standardizacion!

</p><p>The traditional "simple" desktop application that parent post referred to involved each team member claiming and defending his ego turf against the others, no clear boundaries between the different pieces of the project, and an end result that was chunks of this and that glued together, sort of, by compromises (instead of through standard interfaces).

</p><p>It is far easier and less expensive to develop a project built of HTTP, HTML, CSS, XML, SQL, JavaScript, and { PHP | Python | Ruby | 'other scripting language' } than the old ways of doing things. I been there; I used to have the tee shirt but I tossed it out.

</p><p>Which, when I think about it, might have something to do with Google's incredible output of interesting projects, compared to Microsoft's problems in just trying to re-version the same products they've been pushing for more than a decade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's seven different guys collaborating , each focusing on doing a good job on his own piece , and the whole thing coming together in standardized ways .
Viva standardizacion !
The traditional " simple " desktop application that parent post referred to involved each team member claiming and defending his ego turf against the others , no clear boundaries between the different pieces of the project , and an end result that was chunks of this and that glued together , sort of , by compromises ( instead of through standard interfaces ) .
It is far easier and less expensive to develop a project built of HTTP , HTML , CSS , XML , SQL , JavaScript , and { PHP | Python | Ruby | 'other scripting language ' } than the old ways of doing things .
I been there ; I used to have the tee shirt but I tossed it out .
Which , when I think about it , might have something to do with Google 's incredible output of interesting projects , compared to Microsoft 's problems in just trying to re-version the same products they 've been pushing for more than a decade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's seven different guys collaborating, each focusing on doing a good job on his own piece, and the whole thing coming together in standardized ways.
Viva standardizacion!
The traditional "simple" desktop application that parent post referred to involved each team member claiming and defending his ego turf against the others, no clear boundaries between the different pieces of the project, and an end result that was chunks of this and that glued together, sort of, by compromises (instead of through standard interfaces).
It is far easier and less expensive to develop a project built of HTTP, HTML, CSS, XML, SQL, JavaScript, and { PHP | Python | Ruby | 'other scripting language' } than the old ways of doing things.
I been there; I used to have the tee shirt but I tossed it out.
Which, when I think about it, might have something to do with Google's incredible output of interesting projects, compared to Microsoft's problems in just trying to re-version the same products they've been pushing for more than a decade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28273775</id>
	<title>Who?</title>
	<author>adavies42</author>
	<datestamp>1244555760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does Ray Ozzie really have the name recognition around here to not note that he works for Microsoft? I could see it for Gates or Ballmer, but it took me a minute to remember who he was, let alone where he works.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does Ray Ozzie really have the name recognition around here to not note that he works for Microsoft ?
I could see it for Gates or Ballmer , but it took me a minute to remember who he was , let alone where he works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does Ray Ozzie really have the name recognition around here to not note that he works for Microsoft?
I could see it for Gates or Ballmer, but it took me a minute to remember who he was, let alone where he works.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272243</id>
	<title>*Chief* Software Architect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244544960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So I was wondering who Ray Ozzie is, and how about that, he's a software architect for Microsoft.</p></div><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray\_Ozzie" title="wikipedia.org">Ray Ozzie</a> [wikipedia.org] is the Chief Software Architect of Microsoft. He replaced Bill Gates as the person who drives Microsoft's technological decisions.</p><p>Live Mesh is Ray's brainchild. Why is it important to listen to what Ray says? Because he directs the future of Microsoft's development in the space. He controls billions of Microsoft dollars. The point is that he's not some random Microsoft shill - he's the guy in charge.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I was wondering who Ray Ozzie is , and how about that , he 's a software architect for Microsoft .
Ray Ozzie [ wikipedia.org ] is the Chief Software Architect of Microsoft .
He replaced Bill Gates as the person who drives Microsoft 's technological decisions.Live Mesh is Ray 's brainchild .
Why is it important to listen to what Ray says ?
Because he directs the future of Microsoft 's development in the space .
He controls billions of Microsoft dollars .
The point is that he 's not some random Microsoft shill - he 's the guy in charge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I was wondering who Ray Ozzie is, and how about that, he's a software architect for Microsoft.
Ray Ozzie [wikipedia.org] is the Chief Software Architect of Microsoft.
He replaced Bill Gates as the person who drives Microsoft's technological decisions.Live Mesh is Ray's brainchild.
Why is it important to listen to what Ray says?
Because he directs the future of Microsoft's development in the space.
He controls billions of Microsoft dollars.
The point is that he's not some random Microsoft shill - he's the guy in charge.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271359</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272457</id>
	<title>Complex or Complicated?</title>
	<author>Stefanwulf</author>
	<datestamp>1244546580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems like what he is saying is more that it is too complicated, rather than too complex.  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity" title="wikipedia.org">Complexity</a> [wikipedia.org]  - in terms of many interacting agents, the difficulty of predicting emergent behaviors, and the ability to spontaneously form new structures - seems to be the key feature that made the web successful.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems like what he is saying is more that it is too complicated , rather than too complex .
Complexity [ wikipedia.org ] - in terms of many interacting agents , the difficulty of predicting emergent behaviors , and the ability to spontaneously form new structures - seems to be the key feature that made the web successful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems like what he is saying is more that it is too complicated, rather than too complex.
Complexity [wikipedia.org]  - in terms of many interacting agents, the difficulty of predicting emergent behaviors, and the ability to spontaneously form new structures - seems to be the key feature that made the web successful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271353</id>
	<title>glug</title>
	<author>Juln</author>
	<datestamp>1244540820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Things that people from Microsoft say about both open source and google are often very stupid, and this bit from Mr. Ozzie is no exception.</p><p>I have an aversion to video, so unfortunately I cannot comment on the rest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Things that people from Microsoft say about both open source and google are often very stupid , and this bit from Mr. Ozzie is no exception.I have an aversion to video , so unfortunately I can not comment on the rest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Things that people from Microsoft say about both open source and google are often very stupid, and this bit from Mr. Ozzie is no exception.I have an aversion to video, so unfortunately I cannot comment on the rest.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272257</id>
	<title>Re:What is this about Google Wave?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244545080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, Google Wave does not immediately offer any new features, but it does simplify many of those things. It is actually very similar to e-mail as it is a decentralized system for storing and transmitting data, except it is designed to be real-time, support threading/discussions easily, and embed various types of applications and rich data easily. This essientially raises an e-mail/IM medium such that it can be used instead of web for simple uses. IM is not suitable because, unlike e-mail and Wave, it does not persist on the server -- and I think the interesting applications of Wave rely on the persistance, not real-time communication.</p><p>Consider that currently services like Flickr/Picasa are often used to e-mail photos to people because e-mail/IM as it is currently implemented is practically unuseable for that application. In Wave, you could just put the photos into a wave, include an AJAXy photo gallery gadget to make it pretty, and invite whoever you wanted to see it -- and they could easily comment on the photos, etc. A blog is even easier as it is just text.</p><p>As the actual "application" there is part of the message, the server only has to be a normal Wave server, running no special software itself. Therefore, this makes it far easier to publish information on the internet without relying on a specific party to host the data/application for you.</p><p>captcha: <b>detach</b> (from overly-centralized web-based systems)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , Google Wave does not immediately offer any new features , but it does simplify many of those things .
It is actually very similar to e-mail as it is a decentralized system for storing and transmitting data , except it is designed to be real-time , support threading/discussions easily , and embed various types of applications and rich data easily .
This essientially raises an e-mail/IM medium such that it can be used instead of web for simple uses .
IM is not suitable because , unlike e-mail and Wave , it does not persist on the server -- and I think the interesting applications of Wave rely on the persistance , not real-time communication.Consider that currently services like Flickr/Picasa are often used to e-mail photos to people because e-mail/IM as it is currently implemented is practically unuseable for that application .
In Wave , you could just put the photos into a wave , include an AJAXy photo gallery gadget to make it pretty , and invite whoever you wanted to see it -- and they could easily comment on the photos , etc .
A blog is even easier as it is just text.As the actual " application " there is part of the message , the server only has to be a normal Wave server , running no special software itself .
Therefore , this makes it far easier to publish information on the internet without relying on a specific party to host the data/application for you.captcha : detach ( from overly-centralized web-based systems )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, Google Wave does not immediately offer any new features, but it does simplify many of those things.
It is actually very similar to e-mail as it is a decentralized system for storing and transmitting data, except it is designed to be real-time, support threading/discussions easily, and embed various types of applications and rich data easily.
This essientially raises an e-mail/IM medium such that it can be used instead of web for simple uses.
IM is not suitable because, unlike e-mail and Wave, it does not persist on the server -- and I think the interesting applications of Wave rely on the persistance, not real-time communication.Consider that currently services like Flickr/Picasa are often used to e-mail photos to people because e-mail/IM as it is currently implemented is practically unuseable for that application.
In Wave, you could just put the photos into a wave, include an AJAXy photo gallery gadget to make it pretty, and invite whoever you wanted to see it -- and they could easily comment on the photos, etc.
A blog is even easier as it is just text.As the actual "application" there is part of the message, the server only has to be a normal Wave server, running no special software itself.
Therefore, this makes it far easier to publish information on the internet without relying on a specific party to host the data/application for you.captcha: detach (from overly-centralized web-based systems)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28273507</id>
	<title>Do LiveMesh/Wave really solve the same problem?</title>
	<author>sphantom</author>
	<datestamp>1244553540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure I'm following all the drama here. At issue is which product takes the best approach to solve problem X. Mr Ozzie seems to indicate Google's approach is overly complex to solve said problem, and infers that Microsoft's solution solves the problem with an appropriate level of complexity.</p><p>Now, I saw the entire Google Wave presentation, and also did some reading up on LiveMesh, and I'm not convinced they solve the same problem and can be compared fairly. LiveMesh appears to be an attempt to move an individual's content into the cloud (and be able to synchronize one's data to/from the cloud from any capable device). Google Wave on the other hand is really an alternate (more modern) approach to communication between users (with "synchronization" being a byproduct).</p><p>Let's put it this way. Significant success of Google Wave effectively replaces SMTP/IMAP/POP/etc on the net (existing open standards), and gives communications technologies a much richer feature set. Significant success of LiveMesh means a your data ends up in the cloud with modern methods to be able to access that data agnostically. Granted, things like MS Exchange get moved into the cloud as well, allowing email (or whatever they'd prefer to call your method of communication), but how does that remove our dependence on antiquated technologies like SMTP?</p><p>Both have potential for success, but I see no reason why the two can't co-exist. Personally, I'm more excited about Google Wave, just because it replaces a 40 year old, highly abused open communications standard with something modern, and also open. Microsoft can just go suck it if they think I'm going to move all my personal data into a cloud that they own, maintain, and operate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure I 'm following all the drama here .
At issue is which product takes the best approach to solve problem X. Mr Ozzie seems to indicate Google 's approach is overly complex to solve said problem , and infers that Microsoft 's solution solves the problem with an appropriate level of complexity.Now , I saw the entire Google Wave presentation , and also did some reading up on LiveMesh , and I 'm not convinced they solve the same problem and can be compared fairly .
LiveMesh appears to be an attempt to move an individual 's content into the cloud ( and be able to synchronize one 's data to/from the cloud from any capable device ) .
Google Wave on the other hand is really an alternate ( more modern ) approach to communication between users ( with " synchronization " being a byproduct ) .Let 's put it this way .
Significant success of Google Wave effectively replaces SMTP/IMAP/POP/etc on the net ( existing open standards ) , and gives communications technologies a much richer feature set .
Significant success of LiveMesh means a your data ends up in the cloud with modern methods to be able to access that data agnostically .
Granted , things like MS Exchange get moved into the cloud as well , allowing email ( or whatever they 'd prefer to call your method of communication ) , but how does that remove our dependence on antiquated technologies like SMTP ? Both have potential for success , but I see no reason why the two ca n't co-exist .
Personally , I 'm more excited about Google Wave , just because it replaces a 40 year old , highly abused open communications standard with something modern , and also open .
Microsoft can just go suck it if they think I 'm going to move all my personal data into a cloud that they own , maintain , and operate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure I'm following all the drama here.
At issue is which product takes the best approach to solve problem X. Mr Ozzie seems to indicate Google's approach is overly complex to solve said problem, and infers that Microsoft's solution solves the problem with an appropriate level of complexity.Now, I saw the entire Google Wave presentation, and also did some reading up on LiveMesh, and I'm not convinced they solve the same problem and can be compared fairly.
LiveMesh appears to be an attempt to move an individual's content into the cloud (and be able to synchronize one's data to/from the cloud from any capable device).
Google Wave on the other hand is really an alternate (more modern) approach to communication between users (with "synchronization" being a byproduct).Let's put it this way.
Significant success of Google Wave effectively replaces SMTP/IMAP/POP/etc on the net (existing open standards), and gives communications technologies a much richer feature set.
Significant success of LiveMesh means a your data ends up in the cloud with modern methods to be able to access that data agnostically.
Granted, things like MS Exchange get moved into the cloud as well, allowing email (or whatever they'd prefer to call your method of communication), but how does that remove our dependence on antiquated technologies like SMTP?Both have potential for success, but I see no reason why the two can't co-exist.
Personally, I'm more excited about Google Wave, just because it replaces a 40 year old, highly abused open communications standard with something modern, and also open.
Microsoft can just go suck it if they think I'm going to move all my personal data into a cloud that they own, maintain, and operate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28280787</id>
	<title>Re:Snooore</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244653620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is this modded funny? It's damn informative, it literally surmises everything in TFA and TFS very well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is this modded funny ?
It 's damn informative , it literally surmises everything in TFA and TFS very well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is this modded funny?
It's damn informative, it literally surmises everything in TFA and TFS very well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28287687</id>
	<title>Re:How about criticizing it for unoriginality?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244641380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Wave is a total ripoff of Sharepoint</p></div><p>
Wow, you really <i>are</i> a bad analogy guy.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wave is a total ripoff of Sharepoint Wow , you really are a bad analogy guy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wave is a total ripoff of Sharepoint
Wow, you really are a bad analogy guy.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28276607</id>
	<title>Re:No surprises here</title>
	<author>mcvos</author>
	<datestamp>1244625420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not sure what people would expect Microsoft's Chief Software Architect to say - "Gosh, Google sure has cleaned our clock with this one!"? For that matter, If it were an interview with the lead of Google's Wave team, would you expect them to talk about how Microsoft's approach was superior?</p></div><p>What I'd expect them to do (and I still expect they're gonna do this) is to embrace Wave, add a wave server to Exchange, Mesh or whatever, but implement the standard in their own creative way, offering different functionality to discussions that stay within MS Wave Exchange servers, and fucking up everything when they need to talk to the outside world. But from MS users' point of view, that's going to be the fault of the outside world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure what people would expect Microsoft 's Chief Software Architect to say - " Gosh , Google sure has cleaned our clock with this one ! " ?
For that matter , If it were an interview with the lead of Google 's Wave team , would you expect them to talk about how Microsoft 's approach was superior ? What I 'd expect them to do ( and I still expect they 're gon na do this ) is to embrace Wave , add a wave server to Exchange , Mesh or whatever , but implement the standard in their own creative way , offering different functionality to discussions that stay within MS Wave Exchange servers , and fucking up everything when they need to talk to the outside world .
But from MS users ' point of view , that 's going to be the fault of the outside world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure what people would expect Microsoft's Chief Software Architect to say - "Gosh, Google sure has cleaned our clock with this one!"?
For that matter, If it were an interview with the lead of Google's Wave team, would you expect them to talk about how Microsoft's approach was superior?What I'd expect them to do (and I still expect they're gonna do this) is to embrace Wave, add a wave server to Exchange, Mesh or whatever, but implement the standard in their own creative way, offering different functionality to discussions that stay within MS Wave Exchange servers, and fucking up everything when they need to talk to the outside world.
But from MS users' point of view, that's going to be the fault of the outside world.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272857</id>
	<title>Re:Snooore</title>
	<author>ShieldW0lf</author>
	<datestamp>1244548980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I've found Microsoft's Live Mesh to be an idea in search of an application... whereas Google's product seems more the reverse, an application in search of an idea. I prefer the later. But also, I have no idea what Live Mesh is for. I don't know what the thing is supposed to do.</i> <br> <br>
More like a trap in search of a sucker...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've found Microsoft 's Live Mesh to be an idea in search of an application... whereas Google 's product seems more the reverse , an application in search of an idea .
I prefer the later .
But also , I have no idea what Live Mesh is for .
I do n't know what the thing is supposed to do .
More like a trap in search of a sucker.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've found Microsoft's Live Mesh to be an idea in search of an application... whereas Google's product seems more the reverse, an application in search of an idea.
I prefer the later.
But also, I have no idea what Live Mesh is for.
I don't know what the thing is supposed to do.
More like a trap in search of a sucker...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272233</id>
	<title>Re:What is this about Google Wave?</title>
	<author>Joseph Lam</author>
	<datestamp>1244544900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you just want to run a standalone web forum, then Google Wave may not offer much more than a ajax php forum. And if you just want email, then SMTP+IMAP/POP is surely good enough.</p><p>The power of Google Wave comes from the unification of various communication and collaboration paradigms, it's federated nature, it's extensibility and it's open-standard and web-centric approach. In the old model if I want to participate in a forum I'll have to register on the web, go back to my outlook to get the verification email, and then go back to web. I'll also have to subscribe to email alerts for new posts, then go back to the web to reply. All these context switching is totally unnecessary and can be frustrating when you have say 10 different web forums, 5 social networks, 3 photo sharing sites, and 2 IM networks and 1 blog. And there is no practical way to for me to search and browse through my entire communication history in one place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you just want to run a standalone web forum , then Google Wave may not offer much more than a ajax php forum .
And if you just want email , then SMTP + IMAP/POP is surely good enough.The power of Google Wave comes from the unification of various communication and collaboration paradigms , it 's federated nature , it 's extensibility and it 's open-standard and web-centric approach .
In the old model if I want to participate in a forum I 'll have to register on the web , go back to my outlook to get the verification email , and then go back to web .
I 'll also have to subscribe to email alerts for new posts , then go back to the web to reply .
All these context switching is totally unnecessary and can be frustrating when you have say 10 different web forums , 5 social networks , 3 photo sharing sites , and 2 IM networks and 1 blog .
And there is no practical way to for me to search and browse through my entire communication history in one place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you just want to run a standalone web forum, then Google Wave may not offer much more than a ajax php forum.
And if you just want email, then SMTP+IMAP/POP is surely good enough.The power of Google Wave comes from the unification of various communication and collaboration paradigms, it's federated nature, it's extensibility and it's open-standard and web-centric approach.
In the old model if I want to participate in a forum I'll have to register on the web, go back to my outlook to get the verification email, and then go back to web.
I'll also have to subscribe to email alerts for new posts, then go back to the web to reply.
All these context switching is totally unnecessary and can be frustrating when you have say 10 different web forums, 5 social networks, 3 photo sharing sites, and 2 IM networks and 1 blog.
And there is no practical way to for me to search and browse through my entire communication history in one place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28279291</id>
	<title>After Ray Ozzie read his daily Slashdot...</title>
	<author>Scragglykat</author>
	<datestamp>1244647320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... he was quoted as saying "SHARONNNNNNN!!!!!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>... he was quoted as saying " SHARONNNNNNN ! ! ! ! !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... he was quoted as saying "SHARONNNNNNN!!!!!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272331</id>
	<title>Slashdot calls Ray Ozzie a tool</title>
	<author>kindbud</author>
	<datestamp>1244545500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Next story!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Next story !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Next story!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28275449</id>
	<title>Re:The current web is too complex</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244570280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>An ajax web app that tries to ape a simple desktop app is built with:</p><p>HTTP<br>HTML<br>CSS<br>XML<br>SQL<br>JavaScript<br>PHP/Python/Ruby/other scripting language</p><p>That's 7 different text-based (aka "simple") languages/syntaxes a developer has to learn just to be able just to get the same basic functionality as a simple desktop application. The current system as it is isn't simple.</p></div><p>Um... if you're a web developer, you should already know these like the back of your hand</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>An ajax web app that tries to ape a simple desktop app is built with : HTTPHTMLCSSXMLSQLJavaScriptPHP/Python/Ruby/other scripting languageThat 's 7 different text-based ( aka " simple " ) languages/syntaxes a developer has to learn just to be able just to get the same basic functionality as a simple desktop application .
The current system as it is is n't simple.Um... if you 're a web developer , you should already know these like the back of your hand</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An ajax web app that tries to ape a simple desktop app is built with:HTTPHTMLCSSXMLSQLJavaScriptPHP/Python/Ruby/other scripting languageThat's 7 different text-based (aka "simple") languages/syntaxes a developer has to learn just to be able just to get the same basic functionality as a simple desktop application.
The current system as it is isn't simple.Um... if you're a web developer, you should already know these like the back of your hand
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28274631</id>
	<title>Re:What's this!?</title>
	<author>rs79</author>
	<datestamp>1244563380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"<i>Microsoft praised on the altar of Slashdot!? Blasphemy!</i>"</p><p>That's ok, it's wrong.</p><p>Ozz is full of shit and barely makes sense. His points are self contradictory for one thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Microsoft praised on the altar of Slashdot ! ?
Blasphemy ! " That 's ok , it 's wrong.Ozz is full of shit and barely makes sense .
His points are self contradictory for one thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Microsoft praised on the altar of Slashdot!?
Blasphemy!"That's ok, it's wrong.Ozz is full of shit and barely makes sense.
His points are self contradictory for one thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271483</id>
	<title>Re:Even a stopped clock can tell the right time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244541360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[whispering into watch microphone] pieterh has identified our weakness, send agents immediately.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ whispering into watch microphone ] pieterh has identified our weakness , send agents immediately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[whispering into watch microphone] pieterh has identified our weakness, send agents immediately.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271791</id>
	<title>Re:Ray Ozzie</title>
	<author>nvrrobx</author>
	<datestamp>1244542920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're missing some other details about who Ray Ozzie is - he was the creator of Lotus Notes.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray\_Ozzie" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray\_Ozzie</a> [wikipedia.org]

He definitely has some bias towards Microsoft though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're missing some other details about who Ray Ozzie is - he was the creator of Lotus Notes .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray \ _Ozzie [ wikipedia.org ] He definitely has some bias towards Microsoft though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're missing some other details about who Ray Ozzie is - he was the creator of Lotus Notes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray\_Ozzie [wikipedia.org]

He definitely has some bias towards Microsoft though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271359</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272345</id>
	<title>Re:Ray Ozzie</title>
	<author>idontgno</author>
	<datestamp>1244545560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>who Ray Ozzie is - he was the creator of Lotus Notes.</i> </p><p>For this crime alone, he should be punished extravagantly. Or at least, regarded with skepticism.</p><p>I'm not sayin' Outlook's much better, but still...</p><p>signed,<br>  idontgno, current Lotus Notes sufferer^w user</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>who Ray Ozzie is - he was the creator of Lotus Notes .
For this crime alone , he should be punished extravagantly .
Or at least , regarded with skepticism.I 'm not sayin ' Outlook 's much better , but still...signed , idontgno , current Lotus Notes sufferer ^ w user</tokentext>
<sentencetext> who Ray Ozzie is - he was the creator of Lotus Notes.
For this crime alone, he should be punished extravagantly.
Or at least, regarded with skepticism.I'm not sayin' Outlook's much better, but still...signed,  idontgno, current Lotus Notes sufferer^w user</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272027</id>
	<title>Re:Even a stopped clock can tell the right time</title>
	<author>malevolentjelly</author>
	<datestamp>1244543940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>FOSS is simply better at solving complex problems (like "how to build an operating system") than closed source development.</p></div><p>But it hasn't built an operating system... it created a messy clone of unix.</p><p>Can someone name an operating system "Built by Open Source"? Something relevant, please.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FOSS is simply better at solving complex problems ( like " how to build an operating system " ) than closed source development.But it has n't built an operating system... it created a messy clone of unix.Can someone name an operating system " Built by Open Source " ?
Something relevant , please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FOSS is simply better at solving complex problems (like "how to build an operating system") than closed source development.But it hasn't built an operating system... it created a messy clone of unix.Can someone name an operating system "Built by Open Source"?
Something relevant, please.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271327</id>
	<title>What's this!?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244540760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft praised on the altar of Slashdot!?  Blasphemy!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft praised on the altar of Slashdot ! ?
Blasphemy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft praised on the altar of Slashdot!?
Blasphemy!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271527</id>
	<title>What is this about Google Wave?</title>
	<author>Britz</author>
	<datestamp>1244541540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I saw the video. Why is this better than a good php web forum software with some Web 2.0 (e.g. JavaScript interactivity) thrown on top? Email will always keep the bulk of messages. And if we were to use chat in a more serious manner, we would get the same result.</p><p>What I saw in Google Wave could be implemented using email,p2p chat or forum software.</p><p>I suppose I am just not smart enough to see how ingenious Google was with Wave. But what if more than 80\% of the users out there are the same? (I am not saying that I am in the top 20\% smart people, I am just smart with computers).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I saw the video .
Why is this better than a good php web forum software with some Web 2.0 ( e.g .
JavaScript interactivity ) thrown on top ?
Email will always keep the bulk of messages .
And if we were to use chat in a more serious manner , we would get the same result.What I saw in Google Wave could be implemented using email,p2p chat or forum software.I suppose I am just not smart enough to see how ingenious Google was with Wave .
But what if more than 80 \ % of the users out there are the same ?
( I am not saying that I am in the top 20 \ % smart people , I am just smart with computers ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I saw the video.
Why is this better than a good php web forum software with some Web 2.0 (e.g.
JavaScript interactivity) thrown on top?
Email will always keep the bulk of messages.
And if we were to use chat in a more serious manner, we would get the same result.What I saw in Google Wave could be implemented using email,p2p chat or forum software.I suppose I am just not smart enough to see how ingenious Google was with Wave.
But what if more than 80\% of the users out there are the same?
(I am not saying that I am in the top 20\% smart people, I am just smart with computers).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271385</id>
	<title>How about criticizing it for unoriginality?</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1244540940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wave is a total ripoff of Sharepoint, which is a ripoff of Notes and other collaboration software.</p><p>If Ozzie really wanted to criticize Google, he should have gone after their unoriginality. Then again, such a criticism may bite him back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wave is a total ripoff of Sharepoint , which is a ripoff of Notes and other collaboration software.If Ozzie really wanted to criticize Google , he should have gone after their unoriginality .
Then again , such a criticism may bite him back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wave is a total ripoff of Sharepoint, which is a ripoff of Notes and other collaboration software.If Ozzie really wanted to criticize Google, he should have gone after their unoriginality.
Then again, such a criticism may bite him back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272461</id>
	<title>Re:Even a stopped clock can tell the right time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244546580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Microsoft: if you want to beat Google, find a way to develop a completely open search ranking system."</p><p>And this to me is the most delicious irony in this stinky stew. I think MS is perfectly capable of developing such a thing, but they will invariably find a way to shoot themselves in the foot. I remember hearing a while back that searching for Linux with the MS search engine produced thousands of results while searching the same term on Google produced tens of millions of hits. <br>
&nbsp; <br>Once you've demonstrated that you are willing to sacrifice results and accuracy for market share, it's hard to earn back that trust. MS has stepped into this mess over and over and doesn't seem to learn from their mistake. <br>
&nbsp; <br>So yeah, I agree. MS just has to build a superior product to succeed. Too bad that seems to be the path less taken.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Microsoft : if you want to beat Google , find a way to develop a completely open search ranking system .
" And this to me is the most delicious irony in this stinky stew .
I think MS is perfectly capable of developing such a thing , but they will invariably find a way to shoot themselves in the foot .
I remember hearing a while back that searching for Linux with the MS search engine produced thousands of results while searching the same term on Google produced tens of millions of hits .
  Once you 've demonstrated that you are willing to sacrifice results and accuracy for market share , it 's hard to earn back that trust .
MS has stepped into this mess over and over and does n't seem to learn from their mistake .
  So yeah , I agree .
MS just has to build a superior product to succeed .
Too bad that seems to be the path less taken .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Microsoft: if you want to beat Google, find a way to develop a completely open search ranking system.
"And this to me is the most delicious irony in this stinky stew.
I think MS is perfectly capable of developing such a thing, but they will invariably find a way to shoot themselves in the foot.
I remember hearing a while back that searching for Linux with the MS search engine produced thousands of results while searching the same term on Google produced tens of millions of hits.
  Once you've demonstrated that you are willing to sacrifice results and accuracy for market share, it's hard to earn back that trust.
MS has stepped into this mess over and over and doesn't seem to learn from their mistake.
  So yeah, I agree.
MS just has to build a superior product to succeed.
Too bad that seems to be the path less taken.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272163</id>
	<title>Re:Ray Ozzie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244544540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you do not know who Ray Ozzie is then please do not comment</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do not know who Ray Ozzie is then please do not comment</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you do not know who Ray Ozzie is then please do not comment</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271359</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272717</id>
	<title>Re:Google's quantum leap</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1244548080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those analogies are too big to fail!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those analogies are too big to fail !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those analogies are too big to fail!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272699</id>
	<title>Re:Even a stopped clock can tell the right time</title>
	<author>RazorSharp</author>
	<datestamp>1244548020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How can Microsoft create a good open source search engine when they can't make a quality closed source engine?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How can Microsoft create a good open source search engine when they ca n't make a quality closed source engine ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can Microsoft create a good open source search engine when they can't make a quality closed source engine?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271639</id>
	<title>Re:Ray Ozzie</title>
	<author>pembo13</author>
	<datestamp>1244542080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't say biased, I'd just say it doesn't make sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't say biased , I 'd just say it does n't make sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't say biased, I'd just say it doesn't make sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271359</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28280241</id>
	<title>Re:Hi, Kettle? It's me, black!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244651280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OH - MY - GOD!</p><p>Lotus Notes <i>is</i> EMACS!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OH - MY - GOD ! Lotus Notes is EMACS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OH - MY - GOD!Lotus Notes is EMACS!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271317</id>
	<title>Watch out for the Jews</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244540640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Jews will use this to steal land from every type of nigger they can find.</p><p>Just look at how much land and water the Jews have stolen from the sand niggers in Palestine.</p><p>You can't trust Jews.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Jews will use this to steal land from every type of nigger they can find.Just look at how much land and water the Jews have stolen from the sand niggers in Palestine.You ca n't trust Jews .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Jews will use this to steal land from every type of nigger they can find.Just look at how much land and water the Jews have stolen from the sand niggers in Palestine.You can't trust Jews.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271607</id>
	<title>Re:Snooore</title>
	<author>stephanruby</author>
	<datestamp>1244541960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Talk about being anti-web. The wave google tool is something you can use on the web. The Microsoft tool is something you have to download and then install before you can even start using. The wave google tool can be used with anyone with an email address. And the Microsoft tool can be used only with other people if those other people registered, downloaded, and installed their software. Yeah, I really wonder who's anti-web now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Talk about being anti-web .
The wave google tool is something you can use on the web .
The Microsoft tool is something you have to download and then install before you can even start using .
The wave google tool can be used with anyone with an email address .
And the Microsoft tool can be used only with other people if those other people registered , downloaded , and installed their software .
Yeah , I really wonder who 's anti-web now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Talk about being anti-web.
The wave google tool is something you can use on the web.
The Microsoft tool is something you have to download and then install before you can even start using.
The wave google tool can be used with anyone with an email address.
And the Microsoft tool can be used only with other people if those other people registered, downloaded, and installed their software.
Yeah, I really wonder who's anti-web now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272653</id>
	<title>Re:The current web is too complex</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244547660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or java with gwt...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or java with gwt.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or java with gwt...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272241</id>
	<title>Re:Google's quantum leap</title>
	<author>Seraphim\_72</author>
	<datestamp>1244544960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>The basic problem these days is that you have many people who want to have access to a shared document. The solution that Microsoft was pursuing was good, and attempted to fit the RSS model blogs use to push content. But in the end you still have many copies of documents, and you're always trying to keep changes synced across them. This approach breaks down when you have multiple sources of change... conflict resolution will always jump up to bite you.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>

Not to be pro Microsoft or anything, but really their current approach is SharePoint, and lots of people are buying into it.</p><blockquote><div><p> <i>Google Wave is a brilliant leapfrog over this problem, at the cost of some complexity.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>

And to decouple your top paragraph and instead apply it to my statement about what they are currently pushing; you may well be right, this could be a giant kick to the crotch to SharePoint.

<br> <br>
Sera</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The basic problem these days is that you have many people who want to have access to a shared document .
The solution that Microsoft was pursuing was good , and attempted to fit the RSS model blogs use to push content .
But in the end you still have many copies of documents , and you 're always trying to keep changes synced across them .
This approach breaks down when you have multiple sources of change... conflict resolution will always jump up to bite you .
Not to be pro Microsoft or anything , but really their current approach is SharePoint , and lots of people are buying into it .
Google Wave is a brilliant leapfrog over this problem , at the cost of some complexity .
And to decouple your top paragraph and instead apply it to my statement about what they are currently pushing ; you may well be right , this could be a giant kick to the crotch to SharePoint .
Sera</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The basic problem these days is that you have many people who want to have access to a shared document.
The solution that Microsoft was pursuing was good, and attempted to fit the RSS model blogs use to push content.
But in the end you still have many copies of documents, and you're always trying to keep changes synced across them.
This approach breaks down when you have multiple sources of change... conflict resolution will always jump up to bite you.
Not to be pro Microsoft or anything, but really their current approach is SharePoint, and lots of people are buying into it.
Google Wave is a brilliant leapfrog over this problem, at the cost of some complexity.
And to decouple your top paragraph and instead apply it to my statement about what they are currently pushing; you may well be right, this could be a giant kick to the crotch to SharePoint.
Sera
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271689</id>
	<title>Re:Wait!</title>
	<author>kylben</author>
	<datestamp>1244542440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure Microsoft is the simple choice.  In the same sense as the simplicity of Winston Smith's television viewing choices.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure Microsoft is the simple choice .
In the same sense as the simplicity of Winston Smith 's television viewing choices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure Microsoft is the simple choice.
In the same sense as the simplicity of Winston Smith's television viewing choices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28287087</id>
	<title>Re:The current web is too complex</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244637000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have no clue.</p><p>Google builds its apps in Java, then compiles the classes into JavaScript and other glue.</p><p>Just as developers who know their shit on the desktop understand compilers, makefiles, UI frameworks, container frameworks, OS fundamentals, assembly code and so on, the devs using Google tools often understand the underlying tools that patch it together and the runtimes that they are using. There are all different abstraction levels and 'languages' to deal with each.</p><p>Desktop apps aren't as simple as you make out, and web apps aren't as horrendous as you make out either. Yes, there is a gap. I find it hard to argue that desktop apps are 'simple' though, especially when it comes to deployment. And I build very popular desktop apps for a living.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have no clue.Google builds its apps in Java , then compiles the classes into JavaScript and other glue.Just as developers who know their shit on the desktop understand compilers , makefiles , UI frameworks , container frameworks , OS fundamentals , assembly code and so on , the devs using Google tools often understand the underlying tools that patch it together and the runtimes that they are using .
There are all different abstraction levels and 'languages ' to deal with each.Desktop apps are n't as simple as you make out , and web apps are n't as horrendous as you make out either .
Yes , there is a gap .
I find it hard to argue that desktop apps are 'simple ' though , especially when it comes to deployment .
And I build very popular desktop apps for a living .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have no clue.Google builds its apps in Java, then compiles the classes into JavaScript and other glue.Just as developers who know their shit on the desktop understand compilers, makefiles, UI frameworks, container frameworks, OS fundamentals, assembly code and so on, the devs using Google tools often understand the underlying tools that patch it together and the runtimes that they are using.
There are all different abstraction levels and 'languages' to deal with each.Desktop apps aren't as simple as you make out, and web apps aren't as horrendous as you make out either.
Yes, there is a gap.
I find it hard to argue that desktop apps are 'simple' though, especially when it comes to deployment.
And I build very popular desktop apps for a living.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271915</id>
	<title>It's no good unless you pay for it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244543520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>by decomposing things to be simpler, you don't need open source.</p></div><p>
Let's see....  you could meet a beautiful girl and fall madly in love and have sex for free for the rest of your life...
</p><p>
Or... you could meet Ray the Pimp and pay $50 bucks for a night with his "best" girl, Grizelda. She even has most of her teeth!
</p><p>
And then you find out at the last minute that she'll sell you condoms for $200 each.  No, the one in your wallet is not "compatible".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>by decomposing things to be simpler , you do n't need open source .
Let 's see.... you could meet a beautiful girl and fall madly in love and have sex for free for the rest of your life.. . Or... you could meet Ray the Pimp and pay $ 50 bucks for a night with his " best " girl , Grizelda .
She even has most of her teeth !
And then you find out at the last minute that she 'll sell you condoms for $ 200 each .
No , the one in your wallet is not " compatible " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>by decomposing things to be simpler, you don't need open source.
Let's see....  you could meet a beautiful girl and fall madly in love and have sex for free for the rest of your life...

Or... you could meet Ray the Pimp and pay $50 bucks for a night with his "best" girl, Grizelda.
She even has most of her teeth!
And then you find out at the last minute that she'll sell you condoms for $200 each.
No, the one in your wallet is not "compatible".
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28276301</id>
	<title>Re:What's this!?</title>
	<author>mcvos</author>
	<datestamp>1244664960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's more like Ray Ozzie ridiculed on the altar of slashdot, since he obviously has no idea what he's talking about.</p><p>(By the way, am I supposed to know who Ray Ozzie is and care about his opinion? I'm pretty sure he's not the only person in the world who doesn't get the point about Google Wave. He might be the first to put his foot in his mouth about it, though.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's more like Ray Ozzie ridiculed on the altar of slashdot , since he obviously has no idea what he 's talking about .
( By the way , am I supposed to know who Ray Ozzie is and care about his opinion ?
I 'm pretty sure he 's not the only person in the world who does n't get the point about Google Wave .
He might be the first to put his foot in his mouth about it , though .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's more like Ray Ozzie ridiculed on the altar of slashdot, since he obviously has no idea what he's talking about.
(By the way, am I supposed to know who Ray Ozzie is and care about his opinion?
I'm pretty sure he's not the only person in the world who doesn't get the point about Google Wave.
He might be the first to put his foot in his mouth about it, though.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272609</id>
	<title>Re:The current web is too complex</title>
	<author>murp</author>
	<datestamp>1244547420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>HTTP</p></div><p>I don't know about that one, how much do you really need to know?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>XML</p></div><p>There is next to no XML in anything I've ever written, most communication between services is done in JSON - I doubt there would be much XML in Wave either.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>SQL</p></div><p>If you've got a good ORM back-end, there shouldn't be any need to hand-code SQL for most server-side applications.</p><p>That whittles it down to four, and I think it's a small price to pay for the advantages of web-based applications (on which I need not expand).</p><p>Also, server-side JavaScript is really coming along and will knock out the requirement for one of those skills.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>HTTPI do n't know about that one , how much do you really need to know ? XMLThere is next to no XML in anything I 've ever written , most communication between services is done in JSON - I doubt there would be much XML in Wave either.SQLIf you 've got a good ORM back-end , there should n't be any need to hand-code SQL for most server-side applications.That whittles it down to four , and I think it 's a small price to pay for the advantages of web-based applications ( on which I need not expand ) .Also , server-side JavaScript is really coming along and will knock out the requirement for one of those skills .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HTTPI don't know about that one, how much do you really need to know?XMLThere is next to no XML in anything I've ever written, most communication between services is done in JSON - I doubt there would be much XML in Wave either.SQLIf you've got a good ORM back-end, there shouldn't be any need to hand-code SQL for most server-side applications.That whittles it down to four, and I think it's a small price to pay for the advantages of web-based applications (on which I need not expand).Also, server-side JavaScript is really coming along and will knock out the requirement for one of those skills.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272119</id>
	<title>Re:Hi, Kettle? It's me, black!</title>
	<author>diegocgteleline.es</author>
	<datestamp>1244544300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>That is not the hallmark of simplicity.</i></p><p>Let me quote what Joel On Software <a href="http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/05/01.html" title="joelonsoftware.com">wrote</a> [joelonsoftware.com] about Ozzie and all this "Mesh" thing:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And now Ray Ozzie's big achievement arrives and what is it? (drumroll...) Microsoft Live Mesh. The future of everything. Microsoft is "moving into the cloud."</p><p>What's Microsoft Live Mesh?</p><p>Hmm, let's see.</p><p>"Imagine all your devices--PCs, and soon Macs and mobile phones--working together to give you anywhere access to the information you care about."</p><p>Wait a minute. Something smells fishy here. Isn't that exactly what Hailstorm was supposed to be? I smell an architecture astronaut.</p><p>And what is this Windows Live Mesh?</p><p>It's a way to synchronize files.</p><p>Jeez, we've had that forever. When did the first sync web sites start coming out? 1999? There were a million versions. xdrive, mydrive, idrive, youdrive, wealldrive for ice cream. Nobody cared then and nobody cares now, because synchronizing files is just not a killer application. I'm sorry. It seems like it should be. But it's not.</p><p>But Windows Live Mesh is not just a way to synchronize files. That's just the sample app. It's a whole goddamned architecture, with an API and developer tools and in insane diagram showing all the nifty layers of acronyms, and it seems like the chief astronauts at Microsoft literally expect this to be their gigantic platform in the sky which will take over when Windows becomes irrelevant on the desktop. And synchronizing files is supposed to be, like, the equivalent of Microsoft Write on Windows 1.0.</p><p>It's Groove, rewritten from scratch, one more time. Ray Ozzie just can't stop rewriting this damn app, again and again and again, and taking 5-7 years each time.</p><p>And the fact that customers never asked for this feature and none of the earlier versions really took off as huge platforms doesn't stop him.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is not the hallmark of simplicity.Let me quote what Joel On Software wrote [ joelonsoftware.com ] about Ozzie and all this " Mesh " thing : And now Ray Ozzie 's big achievement arrives and what is it ?
( drumroll... ) Microsoft Live Mesh .
The future of everything .
Microsoft is " moving into the cloud .
" What 's Microsoft Live Mesh ? Hmm , let 's see .
" Imagine all your devices--PCs , and soon Macs and mobile phones--working together to give you anywhere access to the information you care about .
" Wait a minute .
Something smells fishy here .
Is n't that exactly what Hailstorm was supposed to be ?
I smell an architecture astronaut.And what is this Windows Live Mesh ? It 's a way to synchronize files.Jeez , we 've had that forever .
When did the first sync web sites start coming out ?
1999 ? There were a million versions .
xdrive , mydrive , idrive , youdrive , wealldrive for ice cream .
Nobody cared then and nobody cares now , because synchronizing files is just not a killer application .
I 'm sorry .
It seems like it should be .
But it 's not.But Windows Live Mesh is not just a way to synchronize files .
That 's just the sample app .
It 's a whole goddamned architecture , with an API and developer tools and in insane diagram showing all the nifty layers of acronyms , and it seems like the chief astronauts at Microsoft literally expect this to be their gigantic platform in the sky which will take over when Windows becomes irrelevant on the desktop .
And synchronizing files is supposed to be , like , the equivalent of Microsoft Write on Windows 1.0.It 's Groove , rewritten from scratch , one more time .
Ray Ozzie just ca n't stop rewriting this damn app , again and again and again , and taking 5-7 years each time.And the fact that customers never asked for this feature and none of the earlier versions really took off as huge platforms does n't stop him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is not the hallmark of simplicity.Let me quote what Joel On Software wrote [joelonsoftware.com] about Ozzie and all this "Mesh" thing:And now Ray Ozzie's big achievement arrives and what is it?
(drumroll...) Microsoft Live Mesh.
The future of everything.
Microsoft is "moving into the cloud.
"What's Microsoft Live Mesh?Hmm, let's see.
"Imagine all your devices--PCs, and soon Macs and mobile phones--working together to give you anywhere access to the information you care about.
"Wait a minute.
Something smells fishy here.
Isn't that exactly what Hailstorm was supposed to be?
I smell an architecture astronaut.And what is this Windows Live Mesh?It's a way to synchronize files.Jeez, we've had that forever.
When did the first sync web sites start coming out?
1999? There were a million versions.
xdrive, mydrive, idrive, youdrive, wealldrive for ice cream.
Nobody cared then and nobody cares now, because synchronizing files is just not a killer application.
I'm sorry.
It seems like it should be.
But it's not.But Windows Live Mesh is not just a way to synchronize files.
That's just the sample app.
It's a whole goddamned architecture, with an API and developer tools and in insane diagram showing all the nifty layers of acronyms, and it seems like the chief astronauts at Microsoft literally expect this to be their gigantic platform in the sky which will take over when Windows becomes irrelevant on the desktop.
And synchronizing files is supposed to be, like, the equivalent of Microsoft Write on Windows 1.0.It's Groove, rewritten from scratch, one more time.
Ray Ozzie just can't stop rewriting this damn app, again and again and again, and taking 5-7 years each time.And the fact that customers never asked for this feature and none of the earlier versions really took off as huge platforms doesn't stop him.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272097</id>
	<title>Re:Google's quantum leap</title>
	<author>Tetsujin</author>
	<datestamp>1244544180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The latest analogy that I came up with is one of a Jet Engine....</p></div><p>Your upstart "Jet Engine analogies" are putting trustworthy, hard-working American "Car Analogies" out of work!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The latest analogy that I came up with is one of a Jet Engine....Your upstart " Jet Engine analogies " are putting trustworthy , hard-working American " Car Analogies " out of work !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The latest analogy that I came up with is one of a Jet Engine....Your upstart "Jet Engine analogies" are putting trustworthy, hard-working American "Car Analogies" out of work!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28274017</id>
	<title>Re:Ray Ozzie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244557740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ofcourse many people nowadays prefer opensource softwares to Microsoft ones<a href="http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=1628487" title="goarticles.com" rel="nofollow">.</a> [goarticles.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ofcourse many people nowadays prefer opensource softwares to Microsoft ones .
[ goarticles.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ofcourse many people nowadays prefer opensource softwares to Microsoft ones.
[goarticles.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271359</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28274751</id>
	<title>RE: Ray Ozzie -- Rubbish</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244564340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dispite his considerable skills, he is a worshipper of the small box desktop computer nuclear family mentality from which he will never excape.</p><p>The creation and evolution of the internet and world wide web are as foreign to Ray Ozzie as the internet and the world wide web would be "magic" to a philistine living in the "now" Middle East, in the second century, B.C.</p><p>"Philistine" and "Ray Ozzie" are one in the same.</p><p>Don't be a, "Ray Ozzie."  [This suggest a new perjoretive term to be used to denagrate luddites.]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dispite his considerable skills , he is a worshipper of the small box desktop computer nuclear family mentality from which he will never excape.The creation and evolution of the internet and world wide web are as foreign to Ray Ozzie as the internet and the world wide web would be " magic " to a philistine living in the " now " Middle East , in the second century , B.C .
" Philistine " and " Ray Ozzie " are one in the same.Do n't be a , " Ray Ozzie .
" [ This suggest a new perjoretive term to be used to denagrate luddites .
]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dispite his considerable skills, he is a worshipper of the small box desktop computer nuclear family mentality from which he will never excape.The creation and evolution of the internet and world wide web are as foreign to Ray Ozzie as the internet and the world wide web would be "magic" to a philistine living in the "now" Middle East, in the second century, B.C.
"Philistine" and "Ray Ozzie" are one in the same.Don't be a, "Ray Ozzie.
"  [This suggest a new perjoretive term to be used to denagrate luddites.
]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271985</id>
	<title>Mesh vs Wave?</title>
	<author>Toreo asesino</author>
	<datestamp>1244543760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are they even similar? Mesh is a tool for sharing files across multiple machines.....Wave is a tool for communication and collaboration?</p><p>For the record, Mesh is a damned fine service; I use it to backup all my critical data over all my machines as well as for it's remote desktop to any of the meshed machines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are they even similar ?
Mesh is a tool for sharing files across multiple machines.....Wave is a tool for communication and collaboration ? For the record , Mesh is a damned fine service ; I use it to backup all my critical data over all my machines as well as for it 's remote desktop to any of the meshed machines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are they even similar?
Mesh is a tool for sharing files across multiple machines.....Wave is a tool for communication and collaboration?For the record, Mesh is a damned fine service; I use it to backup all my critical data over all my machines as well as for it's remote desktop to any of the meshed machines.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271593</id>
	<title>Come on...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244541900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>They're just angry that Bing sucks. Bing, the decision engine that's gonna finally FUCKING KILL GOOGLE, or maybe not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're just angry that Bing sucks .
Bing , the decision engine that 's gon na finally FUCKING KILL GOOGLE , or maybe not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're just angry that Bing sucks.
Bing, the decision engine that's gonna finally FUCKING KILL GOOGLE, or maybe not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272529</id>
	<title>Re:Ray Ozzie</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1244547060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Summery seems a little bias, imo.</p></div><p>I have a hard time being sure whether it's biased.  Personally, I read that Google Wave is the "Anti-Web" and I thought, "Sounds cool.  Does that mean it fixes all the dumb stuff about the web?  Or... wait, is 'anti-web' a bad thing?"
</p><p>I read, "If you have something, that by its very nature is very complex, with many goals... then you need open source to have many instances of it because nobody will be able to do an independent implementation of it," and I thought, "Yeah, isn't open source awesome?  It can accomplish things that are really too complex for a proprietary vendor, but it can still work out because lots of different people can work together on the solution!"  And then I thought, "Er... wait, or is that supposed to be a bad thing?"
</p><p>I couldn't really tell if it was praise or criticism until I looked up who Ray Ozzie was, and then I knew it was supposed to be criticism.  To my ears, that Microsoft's approach doesn't require things to be open source really only sounds like an advantage for Microsoft, not for the users or developers who might be interested in the products.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Summery seems a little bias , imo.I have a hard time being sure whether it 's biased .
Personally , I read that Google Wave is the " Anti-Web " and I thought , " Sounds cool .
Does that mean it fixes all the dumb stuff about the web ?
Or... wait , is 'anti-web ' a bad thing ?
" I read , " If you have something , that by its very nature is very complex , with many goals... then you need open source to have many instances of it because nobody will be able to do an independent implementation of it , " and I thought , " Yeah , is n't open source awesome ?
It can accomplish things that are really too complex for a proprietary vendor , but it can still work out because lots of different people can work together on the solution !
" And then I thought , " Er... wait , or is that supposed to be a bad thing ?
" I could n't really tell if it was praise or criticism until I looked up who Ray Ozzie was , and then I knew it was supposed to be criticism .
To my ears , that Microsoft 's approach does n't require things to be open source really only sounds like an advantage for Microsoft , not for the users or developers who might be interested in the products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Summery seems a little bias, imo.I have a hard time being sure whether it's biased.
Personally, I read that Google Wave is the "Anti-Web" and I thought, "Sounds cool.
Does that mean it fixes all the dumb stuff about the web?
Or... wait, is 'anti-web' a bad thing?
"
I read, "If you have something, that by its very nature is very complex, with many goals... then you need open source to have many instances of it because nobody will be able to do an independent implementation of it," and I thought, "Yeah, isn't open source awesome?
It can accomplish things that are really too complex for a proprietary vendor, but it can still work out because lots of different people can work together on the solution!
"  And then I thought, "Er... wait, or is that supposed to be a bad thing?
"
I couldn't really tell if it was praise or criticism until I looked up who Ray Ozzie was, and then I knew it was supposed to be criticism.
To my ears, that Microsoft's approach doesn't require things to be open source really only sounds like an advantage for Microsoft, not for the users or developers who might be interested in the products.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271359</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271793</id>
	<title>Re:What is this about Google Wave?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244542920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But dude, this is all INTEGRATED!<br>INTEGRATED MANNN.</p><p>This takes all the things you mentioned, and integrated it into one easy-to-use package that anyone can setup.<br>Yes, you could easily go create it yourself, if you knew how to.<br>There are a few sites around that do similar things to this, but fairly small. (last time i used one, the site died...)<br>Nobody is really saying this IS the best, but generally, since it allows all the functionality of the things you mentioned, viewing the entire history, simple setup, collab on a level rarely seen in web apps... well that sounds pretty damn awesome to me.</p><p>I have been waiting for this for a long time.<br>Gmail was fantastic, this is Gmail on steroids running at the speed of light on the event horizon of a blackhole!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But dude , this is all INTEGRATED ! INTEGRATED MANNN.This takes all the things you mentioned , and integrated it into one easy-to-use package that anyone can setup.Yes , you could easily go create it yourself , if you knew how to.There are a few sites around that do similar things to this , but fairly small .
( last time i used one , the site died... ) Nobody is really saying this IS the best , but generally , since it allows all the functionality of the things you mentioned , viewing the entire history , simple setup , collab on a level rarely seen in web apps... well that sounds pretty damn awesome to me.I have been waiting for this for a long time.Gmail was fantastic , this is Gmail on steroids running at the speed of light on the event horizon of a blackhole !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But dude, this is all INTEGRATED!INTEGRATED MANNN.This takes all the things you mentioned, and integrated it into one easy-to-use package that anyone can setup.Yes, you could easily go create it yourself, if you knew how to.There are a few sites around that do similar things to this, but fairly small.
(last time i used one, the site died...)Nobody is really saying this IS the best, but generally, since it allows all the functionality of the things you mentioned, viewing the entire history, simple setup, collab on a level rarely seen in web apps... well that sounds pretty damn awesome to me.I have been waiting for this for a long time.Gmail was fantastic, this is Gmail on steroids running at the speed of light on the event horizon of a blackhole!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271975</id>
	<title>Re:Hi, Kettle? It's me, black!</title>
	<author>RidiculousPie</author>
	<datestamp>1244543760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machinegun. It is the finest available"
Wernstrom, Futurama.

The wisdom of Futurama never ceases to amaze</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Ladies and gentlemen , my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machinegun .
It is the finest available " Wernstrom , Futurama .
The wisdom of Futurama never ceases to amaze</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machinegun.
It is the finest available"
Wernstrom, Futurama.
The wisdom of Futurama never ceases to amaze</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271501</id>
	<title>Oh noes!!</title>
	<author>y5</author>
	<datestamp>1244541420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think we're missing the point. This isn't about Google or Microsoft, or even Wave. This is about some guy trying to achieve Jesse James Garrett status by coining an even more annoying buzzword than Web 2.0. Don't let it happen!!</p><p>Why can't we just stick with "...considered harmful" and move on, Ozzie? Please??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think we 're missing the point .
This is n't about Google or Microsoft , or even Wave .
This is about some guy trying to achieve Jesse James Garrett status by coining an even more annoying buzzword than Web 2.0 .
Do n't let it happen !
! Why ca n't we just stick with " ...considered harmful " and move on , Ozzie ?
Please ? ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think we're missing the point.
This isn't about Google or Microsoft, or even Wave.
This is about some guy trying to achieve Jesse James Garrett status by coining an even more annoying buzzword than Web 2.0.
Don't let it happen!
!Why can't we just stick with "...considered harmful" and move on, Ozzie?
Please??</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272147</id>
	<title>Re:Even a stopped clock can tell the right time</title>
	<author>tjonnyc999</author>
	<datestamp>1244544480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft: if you want to beat Google, find a way to develop a completely open search ranking system.</p></div><p>
Most insightful sentence in the discussion so far.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft : if you want to beat Google , find a way to develop a completely open search ranking system .
Most insightful sentence in the discussion so far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft: if you want to beat Google, find a way to develop a completely open search ranking system.
Most insightful sentence in the discussion so far.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271951</id>
	<title>Ozzie advocating simplicity?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244543640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My god, this guy is the king of complexity.  Maybe he's learned something after all these years, if his PR drivel is to be believed.</p><p>Notes was a steaming pile.  Sure, it did get a lot of things done for a lot of people.  But, it did so in a completely proprietary way, at a time when you could have seen that there were potentially simpler ways to do these things.</p><p>And I didn't think he had learned much from this experience when he designed Groove.</p><p>I'm glad he's finally come around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My god , this guy is the king of complexity .
Maybe he 's learned something after all these years , if his PR drivel is to be believed.Notes was a steaming pile .
Sure , it did get a lot of things done for a lot of people .
But , it did so in a completely proprietary way , at a time when you could have seen that there were potentially simpler ways to do these things.And I did n't think he had learned much from this experience when he designed Groove.I 'm glad he 's finally come around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My god, this guy is the king of complexity.
Maybe he's learned something after all these years, if his PR drivel is to be believed.Notes was a steaming pile.
Sure, it did get a lot of things done for a lot of people.
But, it did so in a completely proprietary way, at a time when you could have seen that there were potentially simpler ways to do these things.And I didn't think he had learned much from this experience when he designed Groove.I'm glad he's finally come around.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28279799</id>
	<title>Re:Wait!</title>
	<author>ginbot462</author>
	<datestamp>1244649180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you kidding? For example,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET is the embodiment of simplicity.</p><p>Say you have this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET GUI you wanted to have interface with an existing C++ event manager that uses generic keys and void* for Callbacks and classes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. well, you wouldn't want to do that. That would be too complex. void*? That even sounds complex.  Also, you need the garbage collection to work, so you can't store managed types in unmanaged classes. Eventually, after wasting hours on Slashdot, you would see that there is the CollectionChangedEventManager and that sort of sounds like it might fit the bill. But for some inexplicable reason, that class isn't available to you. Is it because C++? Is it because you REALLY don't have every version of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET installed? Is 2008 too new? With all the helpful advice on the web concerning<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, specifically with matters more complicated than how to put a freaking button on a dialog, the reason is obvious. So you have to go on to write another event manager, this time as a managed object.  Then you remember you have this old CORBA server you need to connect to as well. Luckily, there is this DCOM wrapper that can ASP out the ADO.  Then your head explodes to allow your torso to rewrite the whole thing from scratch in Python in about 5 mins.</p><p>See, it was a lot easier that way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you kidding ?
For example , .NET is the embodiment of simplicity.Say you have this .NET GUI you wanted to have interface with an existing C + + event manager that uses generic keys and void * for Callbacks and classes .. well , you would n't want to do that .
That would be too complex .
void * ? That even sounds complex .
Also , you need the garbage collection to work , so you ca n't store managed types in unmanaged classes .
Eventually , after wasting hours on Slashdot , you would see that there is the CollectionChangedEventManager and that sort of sounds like it might fit the bill .
But for some inexplicable reason , that class is n't available to you .
Is it because C + + ?
Is it because you REALLY do n't have every version of .NET installed ?
Is 2008 too new ?
With all the helpful advice on the web concerning .NET , specifically with matters more complicated than how to put a freaking button on a dialog , the reason is obvious .
So you have to go on to write another event manager , this time as a managed object .
Then you remember you have this old CORBA server you need to connect to as well .
Luckily , there is this DCOM wrapper that can ASP out the ADO .
Then your head explodes to allow your torso to rewrite the whole thing from scratch in Python in about 5 mins.See , it was a lot easier that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you kidding?
For example, .NET is the embodiment of simplicity.Say you have this .NET GUI you wanted to have interface with an existing C++ event manager that uses generic keys and void* for Callbacks and classes .. well, you wouldn't want to do that.
That would be too complex.
void*? That even sounds complex.
Also, you need the garbage collection to work, so you can't store managed types in unmanaged classes.
Eventually, after wasting hours on Slashdot, you would see that there is the CollectionChangedEventManager and that sort of sounds like it might fit the bill.
But for some inexplicable reason, that class isn't available to you.
Is it because C++?
Is it because you REALLY don't have every version of .NET installed?
Is 2008 too new?
With all the helpful advice on the web concerning .NET, specifically with matters more complicated than how to put a freaking button on a dialog, the reason is obvious.
So you have to go on to write another event manager, this time as a managed object.
Then you remember you have this old CORBA server you need to connect to as well.
Luckily, there is this DCOM wrapper that can ASP out the ADO.
Then your head explodes to allow your torso to rewrite the whole thing from scratch in Python in about 5 mins.See, it was a lot easier that way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272773</id>
	<title>Re:Even a stopped clock can tell the right time</title>
	<author>mattcasters</author>
	<datestamp>1244548380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You seem to imply that Android is closed source?  It's <a href="http://source.android.com/" title="android.com">not</a> [android.com].</p><p>The hardest part of the search technology, the processing of massive amounts of data and the indexing of that was <a href="http://hadoop.apache.org/core/" title="apache.org">open sourced</a> [apache.org] as well.</p><p>I think it's fair to say that Microsoft is anti-open source and Google pro-open source.  Actions speak louder than words, especially words coming from Microsoft I might add.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You seem to imply that Android is closed source ?
It 's not [ android.com ] .The hardest part of the search technology , the processing of massive amounts of data and the indexing of that was open sourced [ apache.org ] as well.I think it 's fair to say that Microsoft is anti-open source and Google pro-open source .
Actions speak louder than words , especially words coming from Microsoft I might add .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You seem to imply that Android is closed source?
It's not [android.com].The hardest part of the search technology, the processing of massive amounts of data and the indexing of that was open sourced [apache.org] as well.I think it's fair to say that Microsoft is anti-open source and Google pro-open source.
Actions speak louder than words, especially words coming from Microsoft I might add.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28273771</id>
	<title>Re:Ray Ozzie</title>
	<author>tburke</author>
	<datestamp>1244555640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ozzie blows his credibility, again, when he starts praising SharePoint.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ozzie blows his credibility , again , when he starts praising SharePoint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ozzie blows his credibility, again, when he starts praising SharePoint.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272705</id>
	<title>Re:Ray Ozzie</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1244548080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought the summary was incoherent, personally, but I suppose if you understood what the hell they were talking about then it might have indeed been biased.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought the summary was incoherent , personally , but I suppose if you understood what the hell they were talking about then it might have indeed been biased .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought the summary was incoherent, personally, but I suppose if you understood what the hell they were talking about then it might have indeed been biased.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271359</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271395</id>
	<title>Wait!</title>
	<author>whisper\_jeff</author>
	<datestamp>1244541000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wait! What?! Microsoft is the simpler choice? Microsoft? Simple? What? Come on! Even people who like Microsoft will never claim that Microsoft is the simpler choice, ever. They may like it, but everyone knows Microsoft is complex... Well, everyone except this guy, it seems...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait !
What ? ! Microsoft is the simpler choice ?
Microsoft ? Simple ?
What ? Come on !
Even people who like Microsoft will never claim that Microsoft is the simpler choice , ever .
They may like it , but everyone knows Microsoft is complex... Well , everyone except this guy , it seems.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait!
What?! Microsoft is the simpler choice?
Microsoft? Simple?
What? Come on!
Even people who like Microsoft will never claim that Microsoft is the simpler choice, ever.
They may like it, but everyone knows Microsoft is complex... Well, everyone except this guy, it seems...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28296553</id>
	<title>Ozzie is a self-indulgent fool</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244745060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ray Ozzie is still resting on his Lotus Notes laurels.  In this press conference, he make the absurd comparison that Groove and Wave are essentially the same thing.  And since Groove came before Wave, he is trying to stake claim to this new technology as well.  Groove is no where close to Wave.  Wave is the first real difference in email systems since the GUI was added.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ray Ozzie is still resting on his Lotus Notes laurels .
In this press conference , he make the absurd comparison that Groove and Wave are essentially the same thing .
And since Groove came before Wave , he is trying to stake claim to this new technology as well .
Groove is no where close to Wave .
Wave is the first real difference in email systems since the GUI was added .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ray Ozzie is still resting on his Lotus Notes laurels.
In this press conference, he make the absurd comparison that Groove and Wave are essentially the same thing.
And since Groove came before Wave, he is trying to stake claim to this new technology as well.
Groove is no where close to Wave.
Wave is the first real difference in email systems since the GUI was added.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28275247</id>
	<title>Re:Google's quantum leap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244568780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Bravo, Google... you've done it again!</p></div></blockquote><p>As someone who's been using the developer preview, I'm not sure you can say this...yet. My impression so far is that Wave is in the pre-alpha stage. It demos well, if you know what not to do, but there's just way too much that's not implemented yet. So far, Google is saying the right things and Wave shows all the promise of being a very useful tool. I doubt it will replace email, but it doesn't have to to be a worthwhile. But it's all going to depend on Google being able to actually ship a version of the server that's ready for prime time and the ability to write extensions/robots that are hosted somewhere other than App Engine. And right now, it doesn't feel like they're anywhere near doing that.</p><p>They may be on the right track, but IMHO, they haven't actually done it yet. Out of curiosity, have you actually used Wave or are you just commenting on the demo?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bravo , Google... you 've done it again ! As someone who 's been using the developer preview , I 'm not sure you can say this...yet .
My impression so far is that Wave is in the pre-alpha stage .
It demos well , if you know what not to do , but there 's just way too much that 's not implemented yet .
So far , Google is saying the right things and Wave shows all the promise of being a very useful tool .
I doubt it will replace email , but it does n't have to to be a worthwhile .
But it 's all going to depend on Google being able to actually ship a version of the server that 's ready for prime time and the ability to write extensions/robots that are hosted somewhere other than App Engine .
And right now , it does n't feel like they 're anywhere near doing that.They may be on the right track , but IMHO , they have n't actually done it yet .
Out of curiosity , have you actually used Wave or are you just commenting on the demo ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bravo, Google... you've done it again!As someone who's been using the developer preview, I'm not sure you can say this...yet.
My impression so far is that Wave is in the pre-alpha stage.
It demos well, if you know what not to do, but there's just way too much that's not implemented yet.
So far, Google is saying the right things and Wave shows all the promise of being a very useful tool.
I doubt it will replace email, but it doesn't have to to be a worthwhile.
But it's all going to depend on Google being able to actually ship a version of the server that's ready for prime time and the ability to write extensions/robots that are hosted somewhere other than App Engine.
And right now, it doesn't feel like they're anywhere near doing that.They may be on the right track, but IMHO, they haven't actually done it yet.
Out of curiosity, have you actually used Wave or are you just commenting on the demo?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271875</id>
	<title>Open protocol isn't the same thing as open source</title>
	<author>DynamiteNeon</author>
	<datestamp>1244543340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where in Google's presentation did they say that implementations had to all be open source?  They simply said they'd supply some of their own code and the documentation for the protocols to allow other people to implement their solutions.  They never said all the other people had to open source their versions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where in Google 's presentation did they say that implementations had to all be open source ?
They simply said they 'd supply some of their own code and the documentation for the protocols to allow other people to implement their solutions .
They never said all the other people had to open source their versions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where in Google's presentation did they say that implementations had to all be open source?
They simply said they'd supply some of their own code and the documentation for the protocols to allow other people to implement their solutions.
They never said all the other people had to open source their versions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28278925</id>
	<title>/me loves wave</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1244645820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>or, i think i will.  i watched the whole damn video and kept thinking, "yeah, that's what i've been wanting all this time".  it won't be for everyone.  But for me, it'll be heaven.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>or , i think i will .
i watched the whole damn video and kept thinking , " yeah , that 's what i 've been wanting all this time " .
it wo n't be for everyone .
But for me , it 'll be heaven .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or, i think i will.
i watched the whole damn video and kept thinking, "yeah, that's what i've been wanting all this time".
it won't be for everyone.
But for me, it'll be heaven.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271753</id>
	<title>Re:Even a stopped clock can tell the right time</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1244542740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"FOSS is simply better at solving complex problems "</p><p>I think it would be better to state that FOSS is cheaper and solving complex problem.</p><p>OS or CS it doesn't matter. All that matters is the quality of effort and time. What OS brings t the table is personal  accountability.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" FOSS is simply better at solving complex problems " I think it would be better to state that FOSS is cheaper and solving complex problem.OS or CS it does n't matter .
All that matters is the quality of effort and time .
What OS brings t the table is personal accountability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"FOSS is simply better at solving complex problems "I think it would be better to state that FOSS is cheaper and solving complex problem.OS or CS it doesn't matter.
All that matters is the quality of effort and time.
What OS brings t the table is personal  accountability.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28273339</id>
	<title>Who's Ray Ozzie...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244552340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and why should we care about what he has to say about anything?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and why should we care about what he has to say about anything ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and why should we care about what he has to say about anything?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28273365</id>
	<title>Re:Ray Ozzie</title>
	<author>RetiredMidn</author>
	<datestamp>1244552580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You're missing some other details about who Ray Ozzie is - he was the creator of Lotus Notes.</p></div><p>And he was biased toward Microsoft way back then.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're missing some other details about who Ray Ozzie is - he was the creator of Lotus Notes.And he was biased toward Microsoft way back then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're missing some other details about who Ray Ozzie is - he was the creator of Lotus Notes.And he was biased toward Microsoft way back then.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28274259</id>
	<title>Microsoft Ink Blot</title>
	<author>benjamindees</author>
	<datestamp>1244560200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have to understand.  Microsoft has no idea what it's supposed to do either.  It's just supposed to compete with Wave.</p><p>It's different things to different people.  And if any of them manage to pony up some cash for it, then Microsoft will make it do what they want it to do.</p><p>This is typical.  Nearly every application from Internet Explorer to PocketPC started out as a completely non-functional response to a successful competitor, an empty husk with a snazzy name and lots of marketing dollars.  Why do you think we're seeing this on Slashdot, really?  I mean, you don't find it coincidental that Microsoft has a never-ending stream of new products waiting in the wings, ready to announce mere weeks after any of it's competitors announce something similar?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to understand .
Microsoft has no idea what it 's supposed to do either .
It 's just supposed to compete with Wave.It 's different things to different people .
And if any of them manage to pony up some cash for it , then Microsoft will make it do what they want it to do.This is typical .
Nearly every application from Internet Explorer to PocketPC started out as a completely non-functional response to a successful competitor , an empty husk with a snazzy name and lots of marketing dollars .
Why do you think we 're seeing this on Slashdot , really ?
I mean , you do n't find it coincidental that Microsoft has a never-ending stream of new products waiting in the wings , ready to announce mere weeks after any of it 's competitors announce something similar ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to understand.
Microsoft has no idea what it's supposed to do either.
It's just supposed to compete with Wave.It's different things to different people.
And if any of them manage to pony up some cash for it, then Microsoft will make it do what they want it to do.This is typical.
Nearly every application from Internet Explorer to PocketPC started out as a completely non-functional response to a successful competitor, an empty husk with a snazzy name and lots of marketing dollars.
Why do you think we're seeing this on Slashdot, really?
I mean, you don't find it coincidental that Microsoft has a never-ending stream of new products waiting in the wings, ready to announce mere weeks after any of it's competitors announce something similar?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28273745</id>
	<title>Re:Ray Ozzie</title>
	<author>MikeBabcock</author>
	<datestamp>1244555520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm still working out how 'requires open source' is an implicit evil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm still working out how 'requires open source ' is an implicit evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm still working out how 'requires open source' is an implicit evil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271359</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271347</id>
	<title>Snooore</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244540820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This just in: Microsoft employee claims that Microsoft tool is the best and their closed-source approach is the only way to go.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This just in : Microsoft employee claims that Microsoft tool is the best and their closed-source approach is the only way to go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This just in: Microsoft employee claims that Microsoft tool is the best and their closed-source approach is the only way to go.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271923</id>
	<title>isn't ozzie still on double-secret probation?</title>
	<author>wardk</author>
	<datestamp>1244543580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lotus Notes = Ray Ozzie</p><p>if this man is speaking, I am not listening</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lotus Notes = Ray Ozzieif this man is speaking , I am not listening</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lotus Notes = Ray Ozzieif this man is speaking, I am not listening</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272791</id>
	<title>Re:Ray Ozzie</title>
	<author>Angostura</author>
	<datestamp>1244548560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More pertinently, he created the bloated, slow monstrosity which was Groove - a peer-to-peer groupware product which he sold to Microsoft. Don't get me wrong - the idea was lovely (and rather like Wave in some ways, except with a closed source dedicated client), but the implementation was grim.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More pertinently , he created the bloated , slow monstrosity which was Groove - a peer-to-peer groupware product which he sold to Microsoft .
Do n't get me wrong - the idea was lovely ( and rather like Wave in some ways , except with a closed source dedicated client ) , but the implementation was grim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More pertinently, he created the bloated, slow monstrosity which was Groove - a peer-to-peer groupware product which he sold to Microsoft.
Don't get me wrong - the idea was lovely (and rather like Wave in some ways, except with a closed source dedicated client), but the implementation was grim.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271523</id>
	<title>Makes sense</title>
	<author>slashdotlurker</author>
	<datestamp>1244541540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In Microsoftian terms, open source is evil. And Google has to resort to that "evil" to keep itself going.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Microsoftian terms , open source is evil .
And Google has to resort to that " evil " to keep itself going .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Microsoftian terms, open source is evil.
And Google has to resort to that "evil" to keep itself going.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28273045</id>
	<title>Re:Google's quantum leap</title>
	<author>Simon80</author>
	<datestamp>1244550180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Subversion is obsolete, superceded by distributed version control systems like git, bzr, and many others. I use git even when working with svn repositories, such is the usefulness of its added functionality. Regardless, even git has shortcomings that I can notice, such as a lack of UI support for diffing and managing formats other than text files. There's plenty of room for improvement in this area, and room for integration with undo functionality in conventional document editing applications.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Subversion is obsolete , superceded by distributed version control systems like git , bzr , and many others .
I use git even when working with svn repositories , such is the usefulness of its added functionality .
Regardless , even git has shortcomings that I can notice , such as a lack of UI support for diffing and managing formats other than text files .
There 's plenty of room for improvement in this area , and room for integration with undo functionality in conventional document editing applications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Subversion is obsolete, superceded by distributed version control systems like git, bzr, and many others.
I use git even when working with svn repositories, such is the usefulness of its added functionality.
Regardless, even git has shortcomings that I can notice, such as a lack of UI support for diffing and managing formats other than text files.
There's plenty of room for improvement in this area, and room for integration with undo functionality in conventional document editing applications.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28275275</id>
	<title>Microsoft's plan to control the Internet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244568960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Live Mesh is supposed to sync everything. Desktops, phones, TVs, and cloud services included. It seems to be part of a strategy that includes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET/Silverlight.</p><p>[yay, buzzwords]</p><p>So in Microsoft's perfect world:</p><ul><li>Everything will have a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET VM, including your computer, TV, and Phone.</li><li>All of your devices sync to Microsoft's Live Mesh servers.</li><li>Cloud based services, will be written with<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET and Silverlight, and use LiveMesh to access their user's data.</li></ul><p>The problem with this whole thing, and IMO a huge barrier to adoption, is that I don't want Microsoft to control everything I do on my computer. I want to be able to run my own code, on my own server.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Live Mesh is supposed to sync everything .
Desktops , phones , TVs , and cloud services included .
It seems to be part of a strategy that includes .NET/Silverlight .
[ yay , buzzwords ] So in Microsoft 's perfect world : Everything will have a .NET VM , including your computer , TV , and Phone.All of your devices sync to Microsoft 's Live Mesh servers.Cloud based services , will be written with .NET and Silverlight , and use LiveMesh to access their user 's data.The problem with this whole thing , and IMO a huge barrier to adoption , is that I do n't want Microsoft to control everything I do on my computer .
I want to be able to run my own code , on my own server .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Live Mesh is supposed to sync everything.
Desktops, phones, TVs, and cloud services included.
It seems to be part of a strategy that includes .NET/Silverlight.
[yay, buzzwords]So in Microsoft's perfect world:Everything will have a .NET VM, including your computer, TV, and Phone.All of your devices sync to Microsoft's Live Mesh servers.Cloud based services, will be written with .NET and Silverlight, and use LiveMesh to access their user's data.The problem with this whole thing, and IMO a huge barrier to adoption, is that I don't want Microsoft to control everything I do on my computer.
I want to be able to run my own code, on my own server.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271381</id>
	<title>Just posting this article is</title>
	<author>ViennaSt</author>
	<datestamp>1244540940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... beyond flamebait.  Is it even worth expelling energy towards a rebuttal to this? It would just be preaching to the choir.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... beyond flamebait .
Is it even worth expelling energy towards a rebuttal to this ?
It would just be preaching to the choir .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... beyond flamebait.
Is it even worth expelling energy towards a rebuttal to this?
It would just be preaching to the choir.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272317</id>
	<title>Re:Even a stopped clock can tell the right time</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1244545380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Microsoft: if you want to beat Google, find a way to develop a completely open search ranking system.</i></p><p>Ballmer:  What's that?  You need a chair flung at your head?  I could have sworn you just said something about "open skull".  I'll fucking kill you and your little Google too!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft : if you want to beat Google , find a way to develop a completely open search ranking system.Ballmer : What 's that ?
You need a chair flung at your head ?
I could have sworn you just said something about " open skull " .
I 'll fucking kill you and your little Google too !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft: if you want to beat Google, find a way to develop a completely open search ranking system.Ballmer:  What's that?
You need a chair flung at your head?
I could have sworn you just said something about "open skull".
I'll fucking kill you and your little Google too!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28275969</id>
	<title>fuck off!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244574900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ping!</p><p>Who gives a shit what Microsofties say, fuck off!</p><p>Bing!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ping ! Who gives a shit what Microsofties say , fuck off ! Bing !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ping!Who gives a shit what Microsofties say, fuck off!Bing!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271435</id>
	<title>Even a stopped clock can tell the right time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244541120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This will become a truism in future times: software is the expression of a social intelligence and the more people are involved, the better that works.  FOSS is simply better at solving complex problems (like "how to build an operating system") than closed source development.</p><p>Ironically, while Google depends on FOSS for its most innovative attacks on Microsoft (Android, for example, which has leapt over WinCE and Symbian with what appears little effort), Google keeps its most valuable technology (searching) completely closed.</p><p>Thus, one can conclude that this is also Google's long term weakness.  Microsoft: if you want to beat Google, find a way to develop a completely open search ranking system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This will become a truism in future times : software is the expression of a social intelligence and the more people are involved , the better that works .
FOSS is simply better at solving complex problems ( like " how to build an operating system " ) than closed source development.Ironically , while Google depends on FOSS for its most innovative attacks on Microsoft ( Android , for example , which has leapt over WinCE and Symbian with what appears little effort ) , Google keeps its most valuable technology ( searching ) completely closed.Thus , one can conclude that this is also Google 's long term weakness .
Microsoft : if you want to beat Google , find a way to develop a completely open search ranking system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will become a truism in future times: software is the expression of a social intelligence and the more people are involved, the better that works.
FOSS is simply better at solving complex problems (like "how to build an operating system") than closed source development.Ironically, while Google depends on FOSS for its most innovative attacks on Microsoft (Android, for example, which has leapt over WinCE and Symbian with what appears little effort), Google keeps its most valuable technology (searching) completely closed.Thus, one can conclude that this is also Google's long term weakness.
Microsoft: if you want to beat Google, find a way to develop a completely open search ranking system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28275831</id>
	<title>Re:*Chief* Software Architect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244573280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this the 'man in charge' at Microsoft? Is this all they got?</p><p>And I thought KDE never really takes off and becomes a true competitive desktop framework, but when I see this man speaking and read what he said, I have hopes KDE still will make it in 3, 4 or 5 or 6 years, oh wait - I guess, no matter what kind of people MS has, they still will win, as the KDE people will screw it up again as they did before.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this the 'man in charge ' at Microsoft ?
Is this all they got ? And I thought KDE never really takes off and becomes a true competitive desktop framework , but when I see this man speaking and read what he said , I have hopes KDE still will make it in 3 , 4 or 5 or 6 years , oh wait - I guess , no matter what kind of people MS has , they still will win , as the KDE people will screw it up again as they did before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this the 'man in charge' at Microsoft?
Is this all they got?And I thought KDE never really takes off and becomes a true competitive desktop framework, but when I see this man speaking and read what he said, I have hopes KDE still will make it in 3, 4 or 5 or 6 years, oh wait - I guess, no matter what kind of people MS has, they still will win, as the KDE people will screw it up again as they did before.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272201</id>
	<title>Re:Google's quantum leap</title>
	<author>diegocgteleline.es</author>
	<datestamp>1244544720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The solution that Microsoft was pursuing was good, and attempted to fit the RSS model blogs use to push content</i></p><p>I think that FeedSync is great...if you think of it as a "improved RSS/Atom", but nothing more. I mean, using it as synchronization protocol for any kind of data flowing to/from the cloud looks stupid.</p><p>And this whole synchronization thing seems to be oriented, in the Microsoft side, to sync data between storage devices and computers. Google however seems want put most of the data in their servers. Just "upload" them one time, and the rest of the time access and share that data with the browser. No need to sync - most of the time. Microsoft is all focused in building a "synchronization protocol" that is not really going to be neccesary if we move all/most of our data to the cloud...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The solution that Microsoft was pursuing was good , and attempted to fit the RSS model blogs use to push contentI think that FeedSync is great...if you think of it as a " improved RSS/Atom " , but nothing more .
I mean , using it as synchronization protocol for any kind of data flowing to/from the cloud looks stupid.And this whole synchronization thing seems to be oriented , in the Microsoft side , to sync data between storage devices and computers .
Google however seems want put most of the data in their servers .
Just " upload " them one time , and the rest of the time access and share that data with the browser .
No need to sync - most of the time .
Microsoft is all focused in building a " synchronization protocol " that is not really going to be neccesary if we move all/most of our data to the cloud.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The solution that Microsoft was pursuing was good, and attempted to fit the RSS model blogs use to push contentI think that FeedSync is great...if you think of it as a "improved RSS/Atom", but nothing more.
I mean, using it as synchronization protocol for any kind of data flowing to/from the cloud looks stupid.And this whole synchronization thing seems to be oriented, in the Microsoft side, to sync data between storage devices and computers.
Google however seems want put most of the data in their servers.
Just "upload" them one time, and the rest of the time access and share that data with the browser.
No need to sync - most of the time.
Microsoft is all focused in building a "synchronization protocol" that is not really going to be neccesary if we move all/most of our data to the cloud...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272121</id>
	<title>by taking wave so seriously</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1244544360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ray ozzie tells the world that we should take wave seriously</p><p>if ray ozzie had ignored wave, then he would have implicitly communicated it would be safe for everyone else to ignore wave</p><p>by throwing a hissy fit over wave, ray ozzie is telling all of us that wave has real potential</p><p>google should cut ray ozzie a check for the free PR and advertising</p><p>when will people learn that there is no such thing as bad press? all exposure, positive or negative, is good exposure. that's why attempts at censorship often backfire (see: streisand effect)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ray ozzie tells the world that we should take wave seriouslyif ray ozzie had ignored wave , then he would have implicitly communicated it would be safe for everyone else to ignore waveby throwing a hissy fit over wave , ray ozzie is telling all of us that wave has real potentialgoogle should cut ray ozzie a check for the free PR and advertisingwhen will people learn that there is no such thing as bad press ?
all exposure , positive or negative , is good exposure .
that 's why attempts at censorship often backfire ( see : streisand effect )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ray ozzie tells the world that we should take wave seriouslyif ray ozzie had ignored wave, then he would have implicitly communicated it would be safe for everyone else to ignore waveby throwing a hissy fit over wave, ray ozzie is telling all of us that wave has real potentialgoogle should cut ray ozzie a check for the free PR and advertisingwhen will people learn that there is no such thing as bad press?
all exposure, positive or negative, is good exposure.
that's why attempts at censorship often backfire (see: streisand effect)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272629</id>
	<title>Anti Web?</title>
	<author>smd75</author>
	<datestamp>1244547540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Coming from a guy who works at a company that spent years screwing up the web as far as coding standards go and whos new web browser asks you to run their own site in compatibility mode? Right</htmltext>
<tokenext>Coming from a guy who works at a company that spent years screwing up the web as far as coding standards go and whos new web browser asks you to run their own site in compatibility mode ?
Right</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Coming from a guy who works at a company that spent years screwing up the web as far as coding standards go and whos new web browser asks you to run their own site in compatibility mode?
Right</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28273987</id>
	<title>Ray Ozzie is still a retard...</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1244557440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean, this guy goes around promoting himself as the next big thing for making a web site that no one's really heard of, and, as Microsoft's "internet genius", he's pretty much sucked.  The company is running around in circles, has kinda blown its client.  I mean Bill Gates's Active Desktop had more, well originality than anything that's come out of MS since then.  At least it was an interesting concept, even if it couldn't quite work.  What do we have now?  Stuff that's not even really interesting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , this guy goes around promoting himself as the next big thing for making a web site that no one 's really heard of , and , as Microsoft 's " internet genius " , he 's pretty much sucked .
The company is running around in circles , has kinda blown its client .
I mean Bill Gates 's Active Desktop had more , well originality than anything that 's come out of MS since then .
At least it was an interesting concept , even if it could n't quite work .
What do we have now ?
Stuff that 's not even really interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, this guy goes around promoting himself as the next big thing for making a web site that no one's really heard of, and, as Microsoft's "internet genius", he's pretty much sucked.
The company is running around in circles, has kinda blown its client.
I mean Bill Gates's Active Desktop had more, well originality than anything that's come out of MS since then.
At least it was an interesting concept, even if it couldn't quite work.
What do we have now?
Stuff that's not even really interesting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271393</id>
	<title>Google's quantum leap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244540940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The basic problem these days is that you have many people who want to have access to a shared document. The solution that Microsoft was pursuing was good, and attempted to fit the RSS model blogs use to push content. But in the end you still have many copies of documents, and you're always trying to keep changes synced across them. This approach breaks down when you have multiple sources of change... conflict resolution will always jump up to bite you.</p><p>Google Wave is a brilliant leapfrog over this problem, at the cost of some complexity. They made engineering choices that so far seem to be very pragmatic and practical... and if you don't like them you could always build your own. They actually distribute the changes to all observers, using OT (Operational Transforms) to keep everything synchronized. As a benefit, you can work on only the changes to a document, instead of having to re-scan the whole thing every time something changes, to attempt to work backwards to figure out the changes.</p><p>The ambition of Google's approach is backed up with a brilliant exploration of the solution space, and a very good choice of models, both in terms of the open source approach, in their openness with documentation, etc... and their choice of federation as a first class part of the model.</p><p>The latest analogy that I came up with is one of a Jet Engine.... instead of working on one charge of fuel/air at a time (one document)... it operates on a stream of fuel and air.... which allows for higher performance (at the cost of some fuel efficiency).</p><p>We don't care as much about the computational cycles as we do all the human time this saves by tracking all the changes, and who made them.</p><p>Bravo, Google... you've done it again!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The basic problem these days is that you have many people who want to have access to a shared document .
The solution that Microsoft was pursuing was good , and attempted to fit the RSS model blogs use to push content .
But in the end you still have many copies of documents , and you 're always trying to keep changes synced across them .
This approach breaks down when you have multiple sources of change... conflict resolution will always jump up to bite you.Google Wave is a brilliant leapfrog over this problem , at the cost of some complexity .
They made engineering choices that so far seem to be very pragmatic and practical... and if you do n't like them you could always build your own .
They actually distribute the changes to all observers , using OT ( Operational Transforms ) to keep everything synchronized .
As a benefit , you can work on only the changes to a document , instead of having to re-scan the whole thing every time something changes , to attempt to work backwards to figure out the changes.The ambition of Google 's approach is backed up with a brilliant exploration of the solution space , and a very good choice of models , both in terms of the open source approach , in their openness with documentation , etc... and their choice of federation as a first class part of the model.The latest analogy that I came up with is one of a Jet Engine.... instead of working on one charge of fuel/air at a time ( one document ) ... it operates on a stream of fuel and air.... which allows for higher performance ( at the cost of some fuel efficiency ) .We do n't care as much about the computational cycles as we do all the human time this saves by tracking all the changes , and who made them.Bravo , Google... you 've done it again !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The basic problem these days is that you have many people who want to have access to a shared document.
The solution that Microsoft was pursuing was good, and attempted to fit the RSS model blogs use to push content.
But in the end you still have many copies of documents, and you're always trying to keep changes synced across them.
This approach breaks down when you have multiple sources of change... conflict resolution will always jump up to bite you.Google Wave is a brilliant leapfrog over this problem, at the cost of some complexity.
They made engineering choices that so far seem to be very pragmatic and practical... and if you don't like them you could always build your own.
They actually distribute the changes to all observers, using OT (Operational Transforms) to keep everything synchronized.
As a benefit, you can work on only the changes to a document, instead of having to re-scan the whole thing every time something changes, to attempt to work backwards to figure out the changes.The ambition of Google's approach is backed up with a brilliant exploration of the solution space, and a very good choice of models, both in terms of the open source approach, in their openness with documentation, etc... and their choice of federation as a first class part of the model.The latest analogy that I came up with is one of a Jet Engine.... instead of working on one charge of fuel/air at a time (one document)... it operates on a stream of fuel and air.... which allows for higher performance (at the cost of some fuel efficiency).We don't care as much about the computational cycles as we do all the human time this saves by tracking all the changes, and who made them.Bravo, Google... you've done it again!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271851</id>
	<title>Re:Hi, Kettle? It's me, black!</title>
	<author>YMgod</author>
	<datestamp>1244543280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed, this guy has no credibility when it comes to software design.  The bastardized POS that is Notes should die a horrible flaming death before I take anything he says seriously.</p><p>I watched the entire Wave presentation and I am awestruck at the concurrent editing and synch capabilities.  It can't come fast enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed , this guy has no credibility when it comes to software design .
The bastardized POS that is Notes should die a horrible flaming death before I take anything he says seriously.I watched the entire Wave presentation and I am awestruck at the concurrent editing and synch capabilities .
It ca n't come fast enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed, this guy has no credibility when it comes to software design.
The bastardized POS that is Notes should die a horrible flaming death before I take anything he says seriously.I watched the entire Wave presentation and I am awestruck at the concurrent editing and synch capabilities.
It can't come fast enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271897</id>
	<title>Idle invasion</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1244543460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Moderators should stop posting funny idle.slashdot videos in main site. Whats next, lolcats?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Moderators should stop posting funny idle.slashdot videos in main site .
Whats next , lolcats ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Moderators should stop posting funny idle.slashdot videos in main site.
Whats next, lolcats?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272179</id>
	<title>Re:Hi, Kettle? It's me, black!</title>
	<author>Belial6</author>
	<datestamp>1244544600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is a Database centric application development platform.  You don't say that it is hard to understand what an OS is if it comes with an email application, or a web browser do you?  Lotus Notes/Domino is EXTREMELY simple to develop on and use.  It's biggest problem is that because it is and has been an Enterprise environment first all of the features that it pioneered got renamed and the look changed a little when competitors finally got around to trying to implement what Notes had been doing for years.  Since the competitors were desktop apps, most people got their first taste of these features with MS or their like, and assumed that Notes was 'non-standard'.<br> <br>

The other problem Notes has is that it is so simple that companies frequently assign the first user to touch it as a developer.  I'm not saying that it is impossible that the Kelly Girl Temp that is in your office this week is a great developer.  I'm just say that on average, the code they tend not to be.  So, a lot of companies have bad apps written by people who simply are not developers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is a Database centric application development platform .
You do n't say that it is hard to understand what an OS is if it comes with an email application , or a web browser do you ?
Lotus Notes/Domino is EXTREMELY simple to develop on and use .
It 's biggest problem is that because it is and has been an Enterprise environment first all of the features that it pioneered got renamed and the look changed a little when competitors finally got around to trying to implement what Notes had been doing for years .
Since the competitors were desktop apps , most people got their first taste of these features with MS or their like , and assumed that Notes was 'non-standard' .
The other problem Notes has is that it is so simple that companies frequently assign the first user to touch it as a developer .
I 'm not saying that it is impossible that the Kelly Girl Temp that is in your office this week is a great developer .
I 'm just say that on average , the code they tend not to be .
So , a lot of companies have bad apps written by people who simply are not developers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is a Database centric application development platform.
You don't say that it is hard to understand what an OS is if it comes with an email application, or a web browser do you?
Lotus Notes/Domino is EXTREMELY simple to develop on and use.
It's biggest problem is that because it is and has been an Enterprise environment first all of the features that it pioneered got renamed and the look changed a little when competitors finally got around to trying to implement what Notes had been doing for years.
Since the competitors were desktop apps, most people got their first taste of these features with MS or their like, and assumed that Notes was 'non-standard'.
The other problem Notes has is that it is so simple that companies frequently assign the first user to touch it as a developer.
I'm not saying that it is impossible that the Kelly Girl Temp that is in your office this week is a great developer.
I'm just say that on average, the code they tend not to be.
So, a lot of companies have bad apps written by people who simply are not developers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272815</id>
	<title>Re:Hi, Kettle? It's me, black!</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1244548740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing that gets me is, Lotus Notes was basically doing the same thing as Google Wave years ago. Distributed persistent documents. A brilliant idea, flawed in execution (and the fact that it wasn't open source so you only had one company to get it from, so it got locked into its own ghetto).</p><p>Wave is another attempt at the concept, hopefully learning a few things and doing it simpler, but... surely Roy Ozzie of all people should see the similarities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing that gets me is , Lotus Notes was basically doing the same thing as Google Wave years ago .
Distributed persistent documents .
A brilliant idea , flawed in execution ( and the fact that it was n't open source so you only had one company to get it from , so it got locked into its own ghetto ) .Wave is another attempt at the concept , hopefully learning a few things and doing it simpler , but... surely Roy Ozzie of all people should see the similarities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing that gets me is, Lotus Notes was basically doing the same thing as Google Wave years ago.
Distributed persistent documents.
A brilliant idea, flawed in execution (and the fact that it wasn't open source so you only had one company to get it from, so it got locked into its own ghetto).Wave is another attempt at the concept, hopefully learning a few things and doing it simpler, but... surely Roy Ozzie of all people should see the similarities.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28273515</id>
	<title>IP-over-Wave</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244553540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have spent far too much time around here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have spent far too much time around here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have spent far too much time around here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28273423</id>
	<title>Ozzie, Ozzie, Ozzie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244552940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oy Oy Oy</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oy Oy Oy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oy Oy Oy</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28277247</id>
	<title>Re:*Chief* Software Architect</title>
	<author>JAlexoi</author>
	<datestamp>1244632320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh, please. It's one thing listening to people talk about merits of their own product. It's another thing listening them when they are blasting their competitors, while praising their own product.<br>
Same goes with children. You can make fun of your's, but never, ever, should you even consider to make fun of another person's child.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , please .
It 's one thing listening to people talk about merits of their own product .
It 's another thing listening them when they are blasting their competitors , while praising their own product .
Same goes with children .
You can make fun of your 's , but never , ever , should you even consider to make fun of another person 's child .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, please.
It's one thing listening to people talk about merits of their own product.
It's another thing listening them when they are blasting their competitors, while praising their own product.
Same goes with children.
You can make fun of your's, but never, ever, should you even consider to make fun of another person's child.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272285</id>
	<title>The current web is too complex</title>
	<author>Ukab the Great</author>
	<datestamp>1244545260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An ajax web app that tries to ape a simple desktop app is built with:</p><p>HTTP<br>HTML<br>CSS<br>XML<br>SQL<br>JavaScript<br>PHP/Python/Ruby/other scripting language</p><p>That's 7 different text-based (aka "simple") languages/syntaxes a developer has to learn just to be able just to get the same basic functionality as a simple desktop application. The current system as it is isn't simple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An ajax web app that tries to ape a simple desktop app is built with : HTTPHTMLCSSXMLSQLJavaScriptPHP/Python/Ruby/other scripting languageThat 's 7 different text-based ( aka " simple " ) languages/syntaxes a developer has to learn just to be able just to get the same basic functionality as a simple desktop application .
The current system as it is is n't simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An ajax web app that tries to ape a simple desktop app is built with:HTTPHTMLCSSXMLSQLJavaScriptPHP/Python/Ruby/other scripting languageThat's 7 different text-based (aka "simple") languages/syntaxes a developer has to learn just to be able just to get the same basic functionality as a simple desktop application.
The current system as it is isn't simple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28274125</id>
	<title>hm.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244558880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that's the difference between end-users and end-developers<br>end-users = dumb<br>end-adv-users = little bit dumb<br>end-developers = sum of N end-adv-users<br>developers = sum of N end-developers</p><p>thus....it's not just exponential scale....google to m$</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that 's the difference between end-users and end-developersend-users = dumbend-adv-users = little bit dumbend-developers = sum of N end-adv-usersdevelopers = sum of N end-developersthus....it 's not just exponential scale....google to m $</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that's the difference between end-users and end-developersend-users = dumbend-adv-users = little bit dumbend-developers = sum of N end-adv-usersdevelopers = sum of N end-developersthus....it's not just exponential scale....google to m$</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28274161</id>
	<title>Re:Google's quantum leap</title>
	<author>williamhb</author>
	<datestamp>1244559180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There are already good solutions to this problem: it is called  revision control  and the Subversion system is a high-quality open source solution to most common version control / sharing scenarios. Visual Source Safe wishes that it could be as good as Subversion, but the open source crowd beat them to it.</p></div><p>That misses why Google Docs was actually popular.  If two people edit the same document at once, using a revision control scheme, then there's a significant potential of a merge conflict or of a nasty "someone else has the lock on this document" message, both of which are a usability nightmare if your users are non-technical -- the user is stopped in their tracks, gives up, and goes away.  Google Docs does use a revision control method behind the scenes (google-diff-match-patch), but because the commits and updates are happening automatically every 30 seconds, the changes are kept very small and the chance of a merge conflict is very much lower.  To show just how simple it is technically, <a href="http://docwit.sourceforge.net/" title="sourceforge.net">Docwit</a> [sourceforge.net] is a very small hobby open source project that ties TinyMCE to google-diff-match-patch to do the same thing, but because you can run your own server you don't have to give Google your data.</p><p>Google Wave essentially just goes "Hmm, why don't we shrink the update period even further, and (like SubEthaEdit, and also quite like a few other projects that have involved working on XML documents remotely) send operational changes when they happen rather than polling every 30 seconds?".  The change size gets even smaller, and with it the chances of having to show a user a "merge conflict" or "lock conflict" scary box are also reduced.</p><p>You see, it turns out not many people use Google Docs for "proper" documents (of the corporate kind) but a heck of a lot use it for collaborative note taking, as a cheap-and-easy wiki, and for lots of other "low-fuss" tasks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are already good solutions to this problem : it is called revision control and the Subversion system is a high-quality open source solution to most common version control / sharing scenarios .
Visual Source Safe wishes that it could be as good as Subversion , but the open source crowd beat them to it.That misses why Google Docs was actually popular .
If two people edit the same document at once , using a revision control scheme , then there 's a significant potential of a merge conflict or of a nasty " someone else has the lock on this document " message , both of which are a usability nightmare if your users are non-technical -- the user is stopped in their tracks , gives up , and goes away .
Google Docs does use a revision control method behind the scenes ( google-diff-match-patch ) , but because the commits and updates are happening automatically every 30 seconds , the changes are kept very small and the chance of a merge conflict is very much lower .
To show just how simple it is technically , Docwit [ sourceforge.net ] is a very small hobby open source project that ties TinyMCE to google-diff-match-patch to do the same thing , but because you can run your own server you do n't have to give Google your data.Google Wave essentially just goes " Hmm , why do n't we shrink the update period even further , and ( like SubEthaEdit , and also quite like a few other projects that have involved working on XML documents remotely ) send operational changes when they happen rather than polling every 30 seconds ? " .
The change size gets even smaller , and with it the chances of having to show a user a " merge conflict " or " lock conflict " scary box are also reduced.You see , it turns out not many people use Google Docs for " proper " documents ( of the corporate kind ) but a heck of a lot use it for collaborative note taking , as a cheap-and-easy wiki , and for lots of other " low-fuss " tasks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are already good solutions to this problem: it is called  revision control  and the Subversion system is a high-quality open source solution to most common version control / sharing scenarios.
Visual Source Safe wishes that it could be as good as Subversion, but the open source crowd beat them to it.That misses why Google Docs was actually popular.
If two people edit the same document at once, using a revision control scheme, then there's a significant potential of a merge conflict or of a nasty "someone else has the lock on this document" message, both of which are a usability nightmare if your users are non-technical -- the user is stopped in their tracks, gives up, and goes away.
Google Docs does use a revision control method behind the scenes (google-diff-match-patch), but because the commits and updates are happening automatically every 30 seconds, the changes are kept very small and the chance of a merge conflict is very much lower.
To show just how simple it is technically, Docwit [sourceforge.net] is a very small hobby open source project that ties TinyMCE to google-diff-match-patch to do the same thing, but because you can run your own server you don't have to give Google your data.Google Wave essentially just goes "Hmm, why don't we shrink the update period even further, and (like SubEthaEdit, and also quite like a few other projects that have involved working on XML documents remotely) send operational changes when they happen rather than polling every 30 seconds?".
The change size gets even smaller, and with it the chances of having to show a user a "merge conflict" or "lock conflict" scary box are also reduced.You see, it turns out not many people use Google Docs for "proper" documents (of the corporate kind) but a heck of a lot use it for collaborative note taking, as a cheap-and-easy wiki, and for lots of other "low-fuss" tasks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272299</id>
	<title>I know it's not the done thing...</title>
	<author>Shemmie</author>
	<datestamp>1244545320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was showing a Linux user Live Mesh today - and I've got to say it's shaping up to be a really impressive 'something'. Not quite sure what it is, but it's impressive. 5 gig syncing across my desktop PC, laptop, home server, work PC, and mobile phone. So it's a cloud storage thingy, I hear you cry. Ah ha, but it also has built-in remote desktop. And you can invite other people to have access to your remotely shared files. <br> <br>So... it's syncing cloud storage, and a remote control system thrown in. Maybe I don't get its place in the Universe, but there's no denying the technology works well. <br> <br>This is me commenting on the technology I know about - not used Wave, but it read as a heck of a technology, on paper. I'd be very interested to get my hands on it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was showing a Linux user Live Mesh today - and I 've got to say it 's shaping up to be a really impressive 'something' .
Not quite sure what it is , but it 's impressive .
5 gig syncing across my desktop PC , laptop , home server , work PC , and mobile phone .
So it 's a cloud storage thingy , I hear you cry .
Ah ha , but it also has built-in remote desktop .
And you can invite other people to have access to your remotely shared files .
So... it 's syncing cloud storage , and a remote control system thrown in .
Maybe I do n't get its place in the Universe , but there 's no denying the technology works well .
This is me commenting on the technology I know about - not used Wave , but it read as a heck of a technology , on paper .
I 'd be very interested to get my hands on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was showing a Linux user Live Mesh today - and I've got to say it's shaping up to be a really impressive 'something'.
Not quite sure what it is, but it's impressive.
5 gig syncing across my desktop PC, laptop, home server, work PC, and mobile phone.
So it's a cloud storage thingy, I hear you cry.
Ah ha, but it also has built-in remote desktop.
And you can invite other people to have access to your remotely shared files.
So... it's syncing cloud storage, and a remote control system thrown in.
Maybe I don't get its place in the Universe, but there's no denying the technology works well.
This is me commenting on the technology I know about - not used Wave, but it read as a heck of a technology, on paper.
I'd be very interested to get my hands on it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271359</id>
	<title>Ray Ozzie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244540880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>So I was wondering who Ray Ozzie is, and how about that, he's a software architect for Microsoft. Of course he's going to praise Microsoft's software, no? Summery seems a little bias, imo.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I was wondering who Ray Ozzie is , and how about that , he 's a software architect for Microsoft .
Of course he 's going to praise Microsoft 's software , no ?
Summery seems a little bias , imo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I was wondering who Ray Ozzie is, and how about that, he's a software architect for Microsoft.
Of course he's going to praise Microsoft's software, no?
Summery seems a little bias, imo.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272007</id>
	<title>Re:Google's quantum leap</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1244543880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But in the end you still have many copies of documents, and you're always trying to keep changes synced across them. This approach breaks down when you have multiple sources of change... conflict resolution will always jump up to bite you.</p></div><p>There are already good solutions to this problem: it is called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revision\_control" title="wikipedia.org"> <b>revision control</b> </a> [wikipedia.org] and the <a href="http://subversion.tigris.org/" title="tigris.org">Subversion</a> [tigris.org] system is a high-quality open source solution to most common version control / sharing scenarios. Visual Source Safe <i>wishes</i> that it could be as good as Subversion, but the open source crowd beat them to it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But in the end you still have many copies of documents , and you 're always trying to keep changes synced across them .
This approach breaks down when you have multiple sources of change... conflict resolution will always jump up to bite you.There are already good solutions to this problem : it is called revision control [ wikipedia.org ] and the Subversion [ tigris.org ] system is a high-quality open source solution to most common version control / sharing scenarios .
Visual Source Safe wishes that it could be as good as Subversion , but the open source crowd beat them to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But in the end you still have many copies of documents, and you're always trying to keep changes synced across them.
This approach breaks down when you have multiple sources of change... conflict resolution will always jump up to bite you.There are already good solutions to this problem: it is called  revision control  [wikipedia.org] and the Subversion [tigris.org] system is a high-quality open source solution to most common version control / sharing scenarios.
Visual Source Safe wishes that it could be as good as Subversion, but the open source crowd beat them to it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271535</id>
	<title>Re:How about criticizing it for unoriginality?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244541600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If Ozzie really wanted to criticize Google, he should have gone after their unoriginality. Then again, such a criticism may bite him back.</p></div><p>I doubt Ozzie, or Microsoft, fear being called unoriginal - Ozzie as the originator of both Notes and Sharepoint is unlikely to be afraid of the comparison and while Microsoft obviously are unoriginal, it's hard to see why anyone would care.</p><p>However, I'm sure he isn't being paid to encourage people to think of Wave as an alternative to Sharepoint.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Ozzie really wanted to criticize Google , he should have gone after their unoriginality .
Then again , such a criticism may bite him back.I doubt Ozzie , or Microsoft , fear being called unoriginal - Ozzie as the originator of both Notes and Sharepoint is unlikely to be afraid of the comparison and while Microsoft obviously are unoriginal , it 's hard to see why anyone would care.However , I 'm sure he is n't being paid to encourage people to think of Wave as an alternative to Sharepoint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Ozzie really wanted to criticize Google, he should have gone after their unoriginality.
Then again, such a criticism may bite him back.I doubt Ozzie, or Microsoft, fear being called unoriginal - Ozzie as the originator of both Notes and Sharepoint is unlikely to be afraid of the comparison and while Microsoft obviously are unoriginal, it's hard to see why anyone would care.However, I'm sure he isn't being paid to encourage people to think of Wave as an alternative to Sharepoint.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272223</id>
	<title>Show of hands</title>
	<author>Vitriolix</author>
	<datestamp>1244544900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Show of hands, who the fuck cares what Ray Ozzie thinks?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Show of hands , who the fuck cares what Ray Ozzie thinks ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Show of hands, who the fuck cares what Ray Ozzie thinks?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28274045</id>
	<title>Re:I know it's not the done thing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244557920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dropbox\_(storage\_provider)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Dropbox</a> [wikipedia.org] does the same thing but has a Linux client. Or you could use <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_online\_backup\_services" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">any number of other online syncing storage solutions</a> [wikipedia.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dropbox [ wikipedia.org ] does the same thing but has a Linux client .
Or you could use any number of other online syncing storage solutions [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dropbox [wikipedia.org] does the same thing but has a Linux client.
Or you could use any number of other online syncing storage solutions [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272299</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272603</id>
	<title>Re:Ray Ozzie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244547360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Summery is biased toward warm weather.  Ahhhh<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Summery is biased toward warm weather .
Ahhhh .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Summery is biased toward warm weather.
Ahhhh ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271359</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28276423</id>
	<title>Re:Snooore</title>
	<author>Fred\_A</author>
	<datestamp>1244666100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And the Microsoft tool can be used only with other people if those other people registered, downloaded, and installed their software.</p></div><p>*And* on a machine which happens to run a compatible operating system. Of which there are two with only one family (from the publishers of the service) fully supported the other (from a fruity company) apparently not enjoying the full experience. Others can always "upgrade". I guess.</p><p>I happened upon MS Mesh while looking at ways to sync various machines. Needless to say when I saw it was from MS I soon forgot about it.<br>I'm doing a rsync based script myself. It's simpler.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And the Microsoft tool can be used only with other people if those other people registered , downloaded , and installed their software .
* And * on a machine which happens to run a compatible operating system .
Of which there are two with only one family ( from the publishers of the service ) fully supported the other ( from a fruity company ) apparently not enjoying the full experience .
Others can always " upgrade " .
I guess.I happened upon MS Mesh while looking at ways to sync various machines .
Needless to say when I saw it was from MS I soon forgot about it.I 'm doing a rsync based script myself .
It 's simpler .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the Microsoft tool can be used only with other people if those other people registered, downloaded, and installed their software.
*And* on a machine which happens to run a compatible operating system.
Of which there are two with only one family (from the publishers of the service) fully supported the other (from a fruity company) apparently not enjoying the full experience.
Others can always "upgrade".
I guess.I happened upon MS Mesh while looking at ways to sync various machines.
Needless to say when I saw it was from MS I soon forgot about it.I'm doing a rsync based script myself.
It's simpler.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271391</id>
	<title>No surprises here</title>
	<author>93 Escort Wagon</author>
	<datestamp>1244540940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure what people would expect Microsoft's Chief Software Architect to say - "Gosh, Google sure has cleaned our clock with this one!"? For that matter, If it were an interview with the lead of Google's Wave team, would you expect them to talk about how Microsoft's approach was superior?</p><p>But I do feel compelled to point out that, until very recently, Microsoft's entire "web" approach was very anti-web. So much of what they did amounted to basically reducing the web/internet to a delivery vehicle for Windows-bound software. We ran into this a few years back - our university bought into a Windows-based "e-learning system". Problem was, this "e-learning" amounted to downloading some ActiveX-driven applications onto your desktop. I (and probably others) complained to the powers-that-be about this, and their response amounted to "we realized this after-the fact, and yes we basically got snookered".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure what people would expect Microsoft 's Chief Software Architect to say - " Gosh , Google sure has cleaned our clock with this one ! " ?
For that matter , If it were an interview with the lead of Google 's Wave team , would you expect them to talk about how Microsoft 's approach was superior ? But I do feel compelled to point out that , until very recently , Microsoft 's entire " web " approach was very anti-web .
So much of what they did amounted to basically reducing the web/internet to a delivery vehicle for Windows-bound software .
We ran into this a few years back - our university bought into a Windows-based " e-learning system " .
Problem was , this " e-learning " amounted to downloading some ActiveX-driven applications onto your desktop .
I ( and probably others ) complained to the powers-that-be about this , and their response amounted to " we realized this after-the fact , and yes we basically got snookered " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure what people would expect Microsoft's Chief Software Architect to say - "Gosh, Google sure has cleaned our clock with this one!"?
For that matter, If it were an interview with the lead of Google's Wave team, would you expect them to talk about how Microsoft's approach was superior?But I do feel compelled to point out that, until very recently, Microsoft's entire "web" approach was very anti-web.
So much of what they did amounted to basically reducing the web/internet to a delivery vehicle for Windows-bound software.
We ran into this a few years back - our university bought into a Windows-based "e-learning system".
Problem was, this "e-learning" amounted to downloading some ActiveX-driven applications onto your desktop.
I (and probably others) complained to the powers-that-be about this, and their response amounted to "we realized this after-the fact, and yes we basically got snookered".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28275941</id>
	<title>MS is Antiweb...!</title>
	<author>rshimizu12</author>
	<datestamp>1244574660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's hard to recall a more hypocritical statement MS has made. Microsoft has done everything in it's power to subvert the web to it's own proprietary protocols. Let's remember it was Bill Gates in his famous internet memo, we need to extend &amp; embrace users with IE so they are forced to use our own protocols. As for Ozzie it's hard to imagine he invented notes after reading this...!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's hard to recall a more hypocritical statement MS has made .
Microsoft has done everything in it 's power to subvert the web to it 's own proprietary protocols .
Let 's remember it was Bill Gates in his famous internet memo , we need to extend &amp; embrace users with IE so they are forced to use our own protocols .
As for Ozzie it 's hard to imagine he invented notes after reading this... !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's hard to recall a more hypocritical statement MS has made.
Microsoft has done everything in it's power to subvert the web to it's own proprietary protocols.
Let's remember it was Bill Gates in his famous internet memo, we need to extend &amp; embrace users with IE so they are forced to use our own protocols.
As for Ozzie it's hard to imagine he invented notes after reading this...!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28277931</id>
	<title>Re:Ray Ozzie</title>
	<author>Kashgarinn</author>
	<datestamp>1244640000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ths quote gets me, from the guy who made lotus notes.. the most complex shit-filled system around: "If you have something, that by its very nature is very complex, with many goals... then you need open source to have many instances of it because nobody will be able to do an independent implementation of it,"</p><p>- Have they open-sourced Lotus notes yet?  No?  can someone tell this guy to shut the hell up as he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ths quote gets me , from the guy who made lotus notes.. the most complex shit-filled system around : " If you have something , that by its very nature is very complex , with many goals... then you need open source to have many instances of it because nobody will be able to do an independent implementation of it , " - Have they open-sourced Lotus notes yet ?
No ? can someone tell this guy to shut the hell up as he does n't have a clue what he 's talking about ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ths quote gets me, from the guy who made lotus notes.. the most complex shit-filled system around: "If you have something, that by its very nature is very complex, with many goals... then you need open source to have many instances of it because nobody will be able to do an independent implementation of it,"- Have they open-sourced Lotus notes yet?
No?  can someone tell this guy to shut the hell up as he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272403</id>
	<title>Re: Revision control</title>
	<author>ka9dgx</author>
	<datestamp>1244546100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like SVN... but it's primary objects are specific versions of files, it does not deal with the changes between them as a primary object, but a means to get the primary object. When you have multiple authors, it's important to know who made what changes, and exactly what the changes were... the "Google Wave" approach is different in that each and every change is tracked, and those changes can be merged into bigger change sets if required... but the granularity is much finer and the authorship is always known.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like SVN... but it 's primary objects are specific versions of files , it does not deal with the changes between them as a primary object , but a means to get the primary object .
When you have multiple authors , it 's important to know who made what changes , and exactly what the changes were... the " Google Wave " approach is different in that each and every change is tracked , and those changes can be merged into bigger change sets if required... but the granularity is much finer and the authorship is always known .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like SVN... but it's primary objects are specific versions of files, it does not deal with the changes between them as a primary object, but a means to get the primary object.
When you have multiple authors, it's important to know who made what changes, and exactly what the changes were... the "Google Wave" approach is different in that each and every change is tracked, and those changes can be merged into bigger change sets if required... but the granularity is much finer and the authorship is always known.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271487</id>
	<title>Hi, Kettle? It's me, black!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244541420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As the guy who designed Lotus Notes, Ray Ozzie has no credit with me about complaining about complexity. What is Lotus Notes? Is it a database? Email system? Application development platform? How about all that and more! A good friend of mine was a Lotus Notes developer back in the day said "Lotus Notes is everything you want and need from now to the end of time, and it's all available to you right now."</p><p>That is not the hallmark of simplicity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As the guy who designed Lotus Notes , Ray Ozzie has no credit with me about complaining about complexity .
What is Lotus Notes ?
Is it a database ?
Email system ?
Application development platform ?
How about all that and more !
A good friend of mine was a Lotus Notes developer back in the day said " Lotus Notes is everything you want and need from now to the end of time , and it 's all available to you right now .
" That is not the hallmark of simplicity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As the guy who designed Lotus Notes, Ray Ozzie has no credit with me about complaining about complexity.
What is Lotus Notes?
Is it a database?
Email system?
Application development platform?
How about all that and more!
A good friend of mine was a Lotus Notes developer back in the day said "Lotus Notes is everything you want and need from now to the end of time, and it's all available to you right now.
"That is not the hallmark of simplicity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28281047</id>
	<title>Vision isn't always peripheral...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244654580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The weakness of Wave is that it's flexible and adaptable and you can do what you want with it, not what Microsoft thinks you should want to do with it.</p><p>The vision of a single company with blinders on...pretending it's not trying in vain to copy the innovators.</p><p>Bing!<br>!:@)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The weakness of Wave is that it 's flexible and adaptable and you can do what you want with it , not what Microsoft thinks you should want to do with it.The vision of a single company with blinders on...pretending it 's not trying in vain to copy the innovators.Bing ! !
: @ )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The weakness of Wave is that it's flexible and adaptable and you can do what you want with it, not what Microsoft thinks you should want to do with it.The vision of a single company with blinders on...pretending it's not trying in vain to copy the innovators.Bing!!
:@)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28273825</id>
	<title>lets not confuse implementation with concept...</title>
	<author>pjr.cc</author>
	<datestamp>1244556180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is the wave really that complex? NO, quite the opposite actually, its fundamentally very simple.</p><p>Where it gets complex is the implementation, and much like how people coded for Internet explorer and mozilla, you'll be coding for "wave implementation x or y". By that I mean that what we've seen from google is their implementation of the wave. Which doesn't seem complex, depending on how your looking at it.</p><p>As a developer coding robots and gadgets (and so forth), it looks quite simple. But its the google implementation of how you will code such things. Obviously there will be wave implementations that are nothing like the google app engine and hence will have their own api's for coding robots and gadgets (and maybe their own form of extensions that arent robots or gadgets).</p><p>Secondly, if we're editing a document together (though it is/will be well specified in format) its up to the "client" to display things correctly, and that could be "interesting" (though with the protocol descriptions so far, that may not be a huge problem). Also, theres the idea of "client"... googles is a web one, but it doesnt have to be that way (i would LOVE to see open office or mozilla run with the idea of a "client" based in the binary space).</p><p>One thing I think the wave does that corp's have wanted to do for a long long time is move data to the IDC. This is probably the most common thing i've heard of.</p><p>As for live mesh, i've read about it, but being a linux boy i cant see anyway of participating. It talks about this that and the other and about being open, yet when Ray talks about it all he starts talking about exchange... is that an open protocol now (aside from what they released to the web a while ago with all those little "we own you clauses")? And what about OOXML doc format, isnt MS Office not even compliant with its own standard?</p><p>It sounds interesting (the mesh), but its hard to understand what its trying to achieve more than file syching, and thats nothing new (imho)...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the wave really that complex ?
NO , quite the opposite actually , its fundamentally very simple.Where it gets complex is the implementation , and much like how people coded for Internet explorer and mozilla , you 'll be coding for " wave implementation x or y " .
By that I mean that what we 've seen from google is their implementation of the wave .
Which does n't seem complex , depending on how your looking at it.As a developer coding robots and gadgets ( and so forth ) , it looks quite simple .
But its the google implementation of how you will code such things .
Obviously there will be wave implementations that are nothing like the google app engine and hence will have their own api 's for coding robots and gadgets ( and maybe their own form of extensions that arent robots or gadgets ) .Secondly , if we 're editing a document together ( though it is/will be well specified in format ) its up to the " client " to display things correctly , and that could be " interesting " ( though with the protocol descriptions so far , that may not be a huge problem ) .
Also , theres the idea of " client " ... googles is a web one , but it doesnt have to be that way ( i would LOVE to see open office or mozilla run with the idea of a " client " based in the binary space ) .One thing I think the wave does that corp 's have wanted to do for a long long time is move data to the IDC .
This is probably the most common thing i 've heard of.As for live mesh , i 've read about it , but being a linux boy i cant see anyway of participating .
It talks about this that and the other and about being open , yet when Ray talks about it all he starts talking about exchange... is that an open protocol now ( aside from what they released to the web a while ago with all those little " we own you clauses " ) ?
And what about OOXML doc format , isnt MS Office not even compliant with its own standard ? It sounds interesting ( the mesh ) , but its hard to understand what its trying to achieve more than file syching , and thats nothing new ( imho ) .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the wave really that complex?
NO, quite the opposite actually, its fundamentally very simple.Where it gets complex is the implementation, and much like how people coded for Internet explorer and mozilla, you'll be coding for "wave implementation x or y".
By that I mean that what we've seen from google is their implementation of the wave.
Which doesn't seem complex, depending on how your looking at it.As a developer coding robots and gadgets (and so forth), it looks quite simple.
But its the google implementation of how you will code such things.
Obviously there will be wave implementations that are nothing like the google app engine and hence will have their own api's for coding robots and gadgets (and maybe their own form of extensions that arent robots or gadgets).Secondly, if we're editing a document together (though it is/will be well specified in format) its up to the "client" to display things correctly, and that could be "interesting" (though with the protocol descriptions so far, that may not be a huge problem).
Also, theres the idea of "client"... googles is a web one, but it doesnt have to be that way (i would LOVE to see open office or mozilla run with the idea of a "client" based in the binary space).One thing I think the wave does that corp's have wanted to do for a long long time is move data to the IDC.
This is probably the most common thing i've heard of.As for live mesh, i've read about it, but being a linux boy i cant see anyway of participating.
It talks about this that and the other and about being open, yet when Ray talks about it all he starts talking about exchange... is that an open protocol now (aside from what they released to the web a while ago with all those little "we own you clauses")?
And what about OOXML doc format, isnt MS Office not even compliant with its own standard?It sounds interesting (the mesh), but its hard to understand what its trying to achieve more than file syching, and thats nothing new (imho)...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28273239</id>
	<title>Re:Ray Ozzie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244551560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I recently watched some of the (hour long) demo of Google Wave. I think was posted here. As I watched, I kept saying to myself that Google had obviously modelled the Wave concept on groupware, specifically Lotus Notes 8.x. They'll deny it, but it definitely has a similar feature set. And Google getting what they have working in a html 5 context only, is quite a miracle. On the other hand Lotus Notes 8.x is a java application, which also gives it some good cross platform portability, but client side processing. BTW, I don't know if this new Slashdot interface is considered html 5, but it really sucks. Perhaps, a few google coders could be hijacked for a day and fix it. God it sucks!</p><p>Anyway, Ozzie saying that Wave is too complex when it modelled on Notes is ironic:<br>kettle, meet pot!</p><p>Just anothe case of NIH syndrome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I recently watched some of the ( hour long ) demo of Google Wave .
I think was posted here .
As I watched , I kept saying to myself that Google had obviously modelled the Wave concept on groupware , specifically Lotus Notes 8.x .
They 'll deny it , but it definitely has a similar feature set .
And Google getting what they have working in a html 5 context only , is quite a miracle .
On the other hand Lotus Notes 8.x is a java application , which also gives it some good cross platform portability , but client side processing .
BTW , I do n't know if this new Slashdot interface is considered html 5 , but it really sucks .
Perhaps , a few google coders could be hijacked for a day and fix it .
God it sucks ! Anyway , Ozzie saying that Wave is too complex when it modelled on Notes is ironic : kettle , meet pot ! Just anothe case of NIH syndrome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recently watched some of the (hour long) demo of Google Wave.
I think was posted here.
As I watched, I kept saying to myself that Google had obviously modelled the Wave concept on groupware, specifically Lotus Notes 8.x.
They'll deny it, but it definitely has a similar feature set.
And Google getting what they have working in a html 5 context only, is quite a miracle.
On the other hand Lotus Notes 8.x is a java application, which also gives it some good cross platform portability, but client side processing.
BTW, I don't know if this new Slashdot interface is considered html 5, but it really sucks.
Perhaps, a few google coders could be hijacked for a day and fix it.
God it sucks!Anyway, Ozzie saying that Wave is too complex when it modelled on Notes is ironic:kettle, meet pot!Just anothe case of NIH syndrome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28273211</id>
	<title>Re:I know it's not the done thing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244551380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I was showing a Linux user Live Mesh today -</p> </div><p>Well that's just cruel (no Linux version)!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was showing a Linux user Live Mesh today - Well that 's just cruel ( no Linux version ) !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was showing a Linux user Live Mesh today - Well that's just cruel (no Linux version)!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272299</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28314313</id>
	<title>Re:Google's quantum leap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244802120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you used Live Mesh?</p><p>I think if you used it you would see how silly your post is.</p><p>Good Luck with your love of Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you used Live Mesh ? I think if you used it you would see how silly your post is.Good Luck with your love of Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you used Live Mesh?I think if you used it you would see how silly your post is.Good Luck with your love of Google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271507</id>
	<title>Re:Even a stopped clock can tell the right time</title>
	<author>SomeJoel</author>
	<datestamp>1244541480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft: if you want to beat Google, find a way to develop a completely open search ranking system.</p></div><p>That would be the craziest day ever. I wonder if it would come on the heels of Rush Limbaugh touting the virtues of President Obama and the RIAA unilaterally dropping all of its pending litigation and issuing a formal apology to those it has sued.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft : if you want to beat Google , find a way to develop a completely open search ranking system.That would be the craziest day ever .
I wonder if it would come on the heels of Rush Limbaugh touting the virtues of President Obama and the RIAA unilaterally dropping all of its pending litigation and issuing a formal apology to those it has sued .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft: if you want to beat Google, find a way to develop a completely open search ranking system.That would be the craziest day ever.
I wonder if it would come on the heels of Rush Limbaugh touting the virtues of President Obama and the RIAA unilaterally dropping all of its pending litigation and issuing a formal apology to those it has sued.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28276877</id>
	<title>Re:Hi, Kettle? It's me, black!</title>
	<author>mcvos</author>
	<datestamp>1244628180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As the guy who designed Lotus Notes, Ray Ozzie has no credit with me about complaining about complexity. [...]</p><p>That is not the hallmark of simplicity.</p></div><p>Maybe he learned from that experience? Note that he says you need open source to solve complex issues well, and Lotus Notes wasn't open source. Basically he's saying that Lotes Notes would have been better if he'd open sourced it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As the guy who designed Lotus Notes , Ray Ozzie has no credit with me about complaining about complexity .
[ ... ] That is not the hallmark of simplicity.Maybe he learned from that experience ?
Note that he says you need open source to solve complex issues well , and Lotus Notes was n't open source .
Basically he 's saying that Lotes Notes would have been better if he 'd open sourced it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As the guy who designed Lotus Notes, Ray Ozzie has no credit with me about complaining about complexity.
[...]That is not the hallmark of simplicity.Maybe he learned from that experience?
Note that he says you need open source to solve complex issues well, and Lotus Notes wasn't open source.
Basically he's saying that Lotes Notes would have been better if he'd open sourced it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272205</id>
	<title>Re:Snooore</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244544780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've found Microsoft's Live Mesh to be an idea in search of an application... whereas Google's product seems more the reverse, an application in search of an idea. I prefer the later. But also, I have no idea what Live Mesh is for. I don't know what the thing is supposed to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've found Microsoft 's Live Mesh to be an idea in search of an application... whereas Google 's product seems more the reverse , an application in search of an idea .
I prefer the later .
But also , I have no idea what Live Mesh is for .
I do n't know what the thing is supposed to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've found Microsoft's Live Mesh to be an idea in search of an application... whereas Google's product seems more the reverse, an application in search of an idea.
I prefer the later.
But also, I have no idea what Live Mesh is for.
I don't know what the thing is supposed to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271443</id>
	<title>Notes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244541180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The bloke responsible for Lotus Notes says something from Google is too complicated?  Who's his writer - Randy Newman?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The bloke responsible for Lotus Notes says something from Google is too complicated ?
Who 's his writer - Randy Newman ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bloke responsible for Lotus Notes says something from Google is too complicated?
Who's his writer - Randy Newman?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28274931</id>
	<title>Re:Google's quantum leap</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1244566080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>But in the end you still have many copies of documents, and you're always trying to keep changes synced across them. This approach breaks down when you have multiple sources of change... conflict resolution will always jump up to bite you.</p></div><p>There are already good solutions to this problem: it is called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revision\_control" title="wikipedia.org"> <b>revision control</b> </a> [wikipedia.org] and the <a href="http://subversion.tigris.org/" title="tigris.org">Subversion</a> [tigris.org] system is a high-quality open source solution to most common version control / sharing scenarios. Visual Source Safe <i>wishes</i> that it could be as good as Subversion, but the open source crowd beat them to it.</p></div><p>The problem with generic revision control systems is that rich document formats like odf and ms doc are not inherently mergeable without knowledge of file formats. Some tools (<a href="http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/" title="selenic.com">mercurial</a> [selenic.com] being one) can invoke external merge tools which in theory allow users to manually merge documents. But it never works as well as plain text source code.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But in the end you still have many copies of documents , and you 're always trying to keep changes synced across them .
This approach breaks down when you have multiple sources of change... conflict resolution will always jump up to bite you.There are already good solutions to this problem : it is called revision control [ wikipedia.org ] and the Subversion [ tigris.org ] system is a high-quality open source solution to most common version control / sharing scenarios .
Visual Source Safe wishes that it could be as good as Subversion , but the open source crowd beat them to it.The problem with generic revision control systems is that rich document formats like odf and ms doc are not inherently mergeable without knowledge of file formats .
Some tools ( mercurial [ selenic.com ] being one ) can invoke external merge tools which in theory allow users to manually merge documents .
But it never works as well as plain text source code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But in the end you still have many copies of documents, and you're always trying to keep changes synced across them.
This approach breaks down when you have multiple sources of change... conflict resolution will always jump up to bite you.There are already good solutions to this problem: it is called  revision control  [wikipedia.org] and the Subversion [tigris.org] system is a high-quality open source solution to most common version control / sharing scenarios.
Visual Source Safe wishes that it could be as good as Subversion, but the open source crowd beat them to it.The problem with generic revision control systems is that rich document formats like odf and ms doc are not inherently mergeable without knowledge of file formats.
Some tools (mercurial [selenic.com] being one) can invoke external merge tools which in theory allow users to manually merge documents.
But it never works as well as plain text source code.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271933</id>
	<title>Re:No surprises here</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1244543580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>their response amounted to "we realized this after-the fact, and yes we basically got snookered"</p></div><p>That is generally what happens when the high-ups in an organization make a software purchase decision based upon some snazzy conference sales presentation made in some tropical resort locale <b>without</b> consulting the IT people (who never get to attend the executive conference at the tropical resort) even after they have returned and (hopefully) before they have signed on the dotted line? Also, has anyone else noticed that these conferences are invariably held in places where the attendees are likely to be in the best possible mood and three sheets to the wind with booze? This is one of the main reasons why I hold a special contempt for sales people who, now more than ever, contribute very little useful or meaningful knowledge to a purchase decision and exist mostly to assist the vendors with the separation of fools and their money.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>their response amounted to " we realized this after-the fact , and yes we basically got snookered " That is generally what happens when the high-ups in an organization make a software purchase decision based upon some snazzy conference sales presentation made in some tropical resort locale without consulting the IT people ( who never get to attend the executive conference at the tropical resort ) even after they have returned and ( hopefully ) before they have signed on the dotted line ?
Also , has anyone else noticed that these conferences are invariably held in places where the attendees are likely to be in the best possible mood and three sheets to the wind with booze ?
This is one of the main reasons why I hold a special contempt for sales people who , now more than ever , contribute very little useful or meaningful knowledge to a purchase decision and exist mostly to assist the vendors with the separation of fools and their money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>their response amounted to "we realized this after-the fact, and yes we basically got snookered"That is generally what happens when the high-ups in an organization make a software purchase decision based upon some snazzy conference sales presentation made in some tropical resort locale without consulting the IT people (who never get to attend the executive conference at the tropical resort) even after they have returned and (hopefully) before they have signed on the dotted line?
Also, has anyone else noticed that these conferences are invariably held in places where the attendees are likely to be in the best possible mood and three sheets to the wind with booze?
This is one of the main reasons why I hold a special contempt for sales people who, now more than ever, contribute very little useful or meaningful knowledge to a purchase decision and exist mostly to assist the vendors with the separation of fools and their money.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271533</id>
	<title>Re:Snooore</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244541600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, but he also said this:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>But "if you have something that by its very nature...is very complex with many roles and the way you configure it...then you need open source to have many instances of it because no one will be able to do an independent implementation of it," Ozzie said.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but he also said this : But " if you have something that by its very nature...is very complex with many roles and the way you configure it...then you need open source to have many instances of it because no one will be able to do an independent implementation of it , " Ozzie said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but he also said this:But "if you have something that by its very nature...is very complex with many roles and the way you configure it...then you need open source to have many instances of it because no one will be able to do an independent implementation of it," Ozzie said.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28281875</id>
	<title>Re:Ray Ozzie</title>
	<author>norminator</author>
	<datestamp>1244657760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When my company switched from Outlook to Lotus Notes, I thought "hey, Lotus is something different, we wouldn't be switching if it didn't add something for us."  I was wrong, and I hate it completely.  That said, we are two versions behind the current release (and will be for the foreseeable future).  I'd like to think that the latest version will fix all my gripes, but seeing how the last transition went, my expectations are that it will actually be worse.  Lotus Notes is horrible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When my company switched from Outlook to Lotus Notes , I thought " hey , Lotus is something different , we would n't be switching if it did n't add something for us .
" I was wrong , and I hate it completely .
That said , we are two versions behind the current release ( and will be for the foreseeable future ) .
I 'd like to think that the latest version will fix all my gripes , but seeing how the last transition went , my expectations are that it will actually be worse .
Lotus Notes is horrible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When my company switched from Outlook to Lotus Notes, I thought "hey, Lotus is something different, we wouldn't be switching if it didn't add something for us.
"  I was wrong, and I hate it completely.
That said, we are two versions behind the current release (and will be for the foreseeable future).
I'd like to think that the latest version will fix all my gripes, but seeing how the last transition went, my expectations are that it will actually be worse.
Lotus Notes is horrible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271469</id>
	<title>Another notable Ray Ozzie quote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244541300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shhaaaaaaron!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shhaaaaaaron !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shhaaaaaaron!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28276731</id>
	<title>false dicothomy</title>
	<author>12357bd</author>
	<datestamp>1244626680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not about M$ vs G$. Both are big monsters, both are trying to sell you his 'services'.</p><p>Let's no mistake, open source is the punch baloon, here.</p><p>The need of a broader use of GPL v3 Affero license is becoming evident, just to stop being used by those big and greedy corporations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not about M $ vs G $ .
Both are big monsters , both are trying to sell you his 'services'.Let 's no mistake , open source is the punch baloon , here.The need of a broader use of GPL v3 Affero license is becoming evident , just to stop being used by those big and greedy corporations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not about M$ vs G$.
Both are big monsters, both are trying to sell you his 'services'.Let's no mistake, open source is the punch baloon, here.The need of a broader use of GPL v3 Affero license is becoming evident, just to stop being used by those big and greedy corporations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272835</id>
	<title>Re:What is this about Google Wave?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244548860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I suppose I am just not smart enough to see how ingenious Google was with Wave"<br>That is obvious, did you you watch or read anything with your eyes and ears open?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I suppose I am just not smart enough to see how ingenious Google was with Wave " That is obvious , did you you watch or read anything with your eyes and ears open ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I suppose I am just not smart enough to see how ingenious Google was with Wave"That is obvious, did you you watch or read anything with your eyes and ears open?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271989</id>
	<title>The Register</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244543820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Register is a Rag British Tabloid for IT failures.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Register is a Rag British Tabloid for IT failures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Register is a Rag British Tabloid for IT failures.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28279817</id>
	<title>Re:*Chief* Software Architect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244649240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>he's the guy in charge</i></p><p>All the more reason to ignore him</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>he 's the guy in chargeAll the more reason to ignore him</tokentext>
<sentencetext>he's the guy in chargeAll the more reason to ignore him</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272243</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28273087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272699
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28273899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28275275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271793
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272815
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28274017
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28274931
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28277931
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28275831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272233
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271689
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28287087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28287687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271933
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272317
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28276607
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272609
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272857
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272705
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28274045
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28276159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28275411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28274161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28277247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28275247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272147
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272163
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28276423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28273745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272119
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28273045
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271535
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28273211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28273365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28314313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28273771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28281875
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272027
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28276877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271533
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28280241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28279817
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271851
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271965
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271327
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28276301
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272403
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28279799
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271327
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28274631
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28273239
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28275449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272653
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28280787
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_198205_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28274259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_198205.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271915
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_198205.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272285
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28275411
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272609
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28276159
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28275449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272653
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28287087
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_198205.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271527
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271793
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272257
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272233
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272835
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_198205.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271327
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28274631
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28276301
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_198205.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271985
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_198205.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271469
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_198205.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28273507
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_198205.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272147
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271507
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272773
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272461
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28273087
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272027
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271483
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271753
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272317
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272699
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_198205.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272121
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_198205.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271607
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28276423
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272205
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28274259
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28275275
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272857
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28280787
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271533
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_198205.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271875
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_198205.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271897
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_198205.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271393
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272097
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272717
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272241
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28275247
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272201
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28314313
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272455
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272007
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28274931
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28274161
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272403
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28273045
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_198205.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271317
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_198205.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28273775
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_198205.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271593
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_198205.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271391
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271933
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28276607
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_198205.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271523
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_198205.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271359
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272163
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272243
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28275831
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28279817
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28277247
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272705
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272603
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28274017
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272529
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28277931
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271965
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28273745
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271791
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272345
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28273771
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28273899
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28281875
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272791
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28273239
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28273365
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_198205.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272299
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28273211
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28274045
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_198205.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271487
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28280241
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272119
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271975
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28276877
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272179
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28272815
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271851
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_198205.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271395
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28279799
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271689
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_198205.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271385
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28287687
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_198205.28271535
</commentlist>
</conversation>
