<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_19_033241</id>
	<title>Microsoft Launches New "Get the Facts" Campaign</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1245412800000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>ko9 writes that Microsoft has re-launched its <i>"<a href="http://www.microsoft.com/windows/internet-explorer/get-the-facts/browser-comparison.aspx">'Get the facts' campaign</a>, in an attempt to promote Internet Explorer 8. It contains a chart that compares IE8 to Firefox and Chrome. Needless to say, IE8 comes out as the clear winner, with MS suggesting it is the only browser to provide features like 'privacy,' 'security,' 'reliability.' It even claims to have Firefox beat in 'customizability.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>ko9 writes that Microsoft has re-launched its " 'Get the facts ' campaign , in an attempt to promote Internet Explorer 8 .
It contains a chart that compares IE8 to Firefox and Chrome .
Needless to say , IE8 comes out as the clear winner , with MS suggesting it is the only browser to provide features like 'privacy, ' 'security, ' 'reliability .
' It even claims to have Firefox beat in 'customizability .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ko9 writes that Microsoft has re-launched its "'Get the facts' campaign, in an attempt to promote Internet Explorer 8.
It contains a chart that compares IE8 to Firefox and Chrome.
Needless to say, IE8 comes out as the clear winner, with MS suggesting it is the only browser to provide features like 'privacy,' 'security,' 'reliability.
' It even claims to have Firefox beat in 'customizability.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389427</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245424200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A possible fix for using your prefered browser on you corporate portal could be to spoof your user agent signature. Here is a tool you could use for that: http://chrispederick.com/work/user-agent-switcher/</p><p>This will only work if the person who wrote the browser checker was really lazy, and if there are no actual reasons for enforcing IE browser, ie. active x components or similar crud.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A possible fix for using your prefered browser on you corporate portal could be to spoof your user agent signature .
Here is a tool you could use for that : http : //chrispederick.com/work/user-agent-switcher/This will only work if the person who wrote the browser checker was really lazy , and if there are no actual reasons for enforcing IE browser , ie .
active x components or similar crud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A possible fix for using your prefered browser on you corporate portal could be to spoof your user agent signature.
Here is a tool you could use for that: http://chrispederick.com/work/user-agent-switcher/This will only work if the person who wrote the browser checker was really lazy, and if there are no actual reasons for enforcing IE browser, ie.
active x components or similar crud.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388317</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28390429</id>
	<title>out of the box huh?</title>
	<author>homes32</author>
	<datestamp>1245428280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>TFA<p> <i>"Sure, Firefox may win in sheer number of add-ons, but many of the customizations you'd want to download for Firefox are already a part of Internet Explorer 8 &#226;" right out of the box."</i> </p><p>
really? IE* has AdblockPlus, Firegestures, and Greasemonkey built in????</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA " Sure , Firefox may win in sheer number of add-ons , but many of the customizations you 'd want to download for Firefox are already a part of Internet Explorer 8   " right out of the box .
" really ?
IE * has AdblockPlus , Firegestures , and Greasemonkey built in ? ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA "Sure, Firefox may win in sheer number of add-ons, but many of the customizations you'd want to download for Firefox are already a part of Internet Explorer 8 â" right out of the box.
" 
really?
IE* has AdblockPlus, Firegestures, and Greasemonkey built in???
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388047</id>
	<title>Where is Opera?</title>
	<author>dimethylxanthine</author>
	<datestamp>1245417660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So by ms standards Opera isn't even a browser. Or maybe they just didn't know how to tame that gaping margin on the right so they could fit a fifth column in there... But I bet now that they have support for CSS (or so they claim) it won't be long until they figure this one out...</htmltext>
<tokenext>So by ms standards Opera is n't even a browser .
Or maybe they just did n't know how to tame that gaping margin on the right so they could fit a fifth column in there... But I bet now that they have support for CSS ( or so they claim ) it wo n't be long until they figure this one out.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So by ms standards Opera isn't even a browser.
Or maybe they just didn't know how to tame that gaping margin on the right so they could fit a fifth column in there... But I bet now that they have support for CSS (or so they claim) it won't be long until they figure this one out...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387927</id>
	<title>IE8 and sharepoint</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245417000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At some place, I use firefox and have to use IE7 for one single purpose: sharepoint. I installed IE8 once, and guess what, explorer view in sharepoint didn't work in IE8, only in IE7. So I had to install IE7 again. Conclusion: IE8 is useless. What a waste of time and energy to launch a campaign about that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At some place , I use firefox and have to use IE7 for one single purpose : sharepoint .
I installed IE8 once , and guess what , explorer view in sharepoint did n't work in IE8 , only in IE7 .
So I had to install IE7 again .
Conclusion : IE8 is useless .
What a waste of time and energy to launch a campaign about that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At some place, I use firefox and have to use IE7 for one single purpose: sharepoint.
I installed IE8 once, and guess what, explorer view in sharepoint didn't work in IE8, only in IE7.
So I had to install IE7 again.
Conclusion: IE8 is useless.
What a waste of time and energy to launch a campaign about that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388197</id>
	<title>Did you notice the browsers they used?</title>
	<author>rrossman2</author>
	<datestamp>1245418620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Tested products include:<p>
Apple Safari v3</p><p>
Google Chrome 1.0.154</p><p>
Microsoft Internet Explorer v8 (RC1)</p><p>
Microsoft Internet Explorer v7</p><p>
Mozilla Firefox v3.07</p><p>
Opera 9.64</p><p>
So they compare a Release Candidate vs "older browsers"? </p><p>
Safari is at version 4 as a regular release, not sure about any beta's or RC's...</p><p>
I'm using Chrome 2.0.172.31 right now to post this</p><p>
Firefox is at 3.5 for a Beta (Or RC by now..)</p><p>
Opera is at 10 for a Beta</p><p>
They should have done apples to apples. When the IE8 RC was out, so was pre-releases of FF 3.5, Opera 10, as well as Safari and Chrome in more updated versions than they used.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tested products include : Apple Safari v3 Google Chrome 1.0.154 Microsoft Internet Explorer v8 ( RC1 ) Microsoft Internet Explorer v7 Mozilla Firefox v3.07 Opera 9.64 So they compare a Release Candidate vs " older browsers " ?
Safari is at version 4 as a regular release , not sure about any beta 's or RC 's.. . I 'm using Chrome 2.0.172.31 right now to post this Firefox is at 3.5 for a Beta ( Or RC by now.. ) Opera is at 10 for a Beta They should have done apples to apples .
When the IE8 RC was out , so was pre-releases of FF 3.5 , Opera 10 , as well as Safari and Chrome in more updated versions than they used .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tested products include:
Apple Safari v3
Google Chrome 1.0.154
Microsoft Internet Explorer v8 (RC1)
Microsoft Internet Explorer v7
Mozilla Firefox v3.07
Opera 9.64
So they compare a Release Candidate vs "older browsers"?
Safari is at version 4 as a regular release, not sure about any beta's or RC's...
I'm using Chrome 2.0.172.31 right now to post this
Firefox is at 3.5 for a Beta (Or RC by now..)
Opera is at 10 for a Beta
They should have done apples to apples.
When the IE8 RC was out, so was pre-releases of FF 3.5, Opera 10, as well as Safari and Chrome in more updated versions than they used.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28392499</id>
	<title>Installed IE 8 and it broke side bar gadgets</title>
	<author>Streetlight</author>
	<datestamp>1245437280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>During the last 2nd Tuesday updates for Vista, IE8 was checked in the list of updates, so I thought, what the heck, might as well include the update. Well, I noticed that the side bar gadgets stopped working. The clock was stopped at the wrong time, the local temperature was wrong and the CPU use/memory use gadget was way off and frozen. I looked around the net and found many forums pointing out the same problem, so I uninstalled IE8 and the gadgets work. This leads me to wonder what else IE8 breaks in Vista.</htmltext>
<tokenext>During the last 2nd Tuesday updates for Vista , IE8 was checked in the list of updates , so I thought , what the heck , might as well include the update .
Well , I noticed that the side bar gadgets stopped working .
The clock was stopped at the wrong time , the local temperature was wrong and the CPU use/memory use gadget was way off and frozen .
I looked around the net and found many forums pointing out the same problem , so I uninstalled IE8 and the gadgets work .
This leads me to wonder what else IE8 breaks in Vista .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>During the last 2nd Tuesday updates for Vista, IE8 was checked in the list of updates, so I thought, what the heck, might as well include the update.
Well, I noticed that the side bar gadgets stopped working.
The clock was stopped at the wrong time, the local temperature was wrong and the CPU use/memory use gadget was way off and frozen.
I looked around the net and found many forums pointing out the same problem, so I uninstalled IE8 and the gadgets work.
This leads me to wonder what else IE8 breaks in Vista.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389433</id>
	<title>Microsoft is evil.</title>
	<author>kurt555gs</author>
	<datestamp>1245424200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eventually Microsoft will go the way of GM. I just wish it was sooner rather than later.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eventually Microsoft will go the way of GM .
I just wish it was sooner rather than later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eventually Microsoft will go the way of GM.
I just wish it was sooner rather than later.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388043</id>
	<title>Re:It's Too Late, I'm Done with IE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245417660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Manageability is about IE being able to be configured and locked down with Active Directory policies. That is #1 reason why most of the large enterprises won't install Firefox... Lack of being able to actually manage the installed applications.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Manageability is about IE being able to be configured and locked down with Active Directory policies .
That is # 1 reason why most of the large enterprises wo n't install Firefox... Lack of being able to actually manage the installed applications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Manageability is about IE being able to be configured and locked down with Active Directory policies.
That is #1 reason why most of the large enterprises won't install Firefox... Lack of being able to actually manage the installed applications.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28391727</id>
	<title>Re:Lies and Lying Liars.</title>
	<author>10101001 10101001</author>
	<datestamp>1245433860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about a compromise?  ObsessiveMathsFreak can stop calling Microsoft liars on their "Get the Facts" campaign and we can all assume all of Microsoft's facts aren't facts until such time that they offer evidence to support their supposed facts.  Until then, we can all complain about how Microsoft is wasting everyone's time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about a compromise ?
ObsessiveMathsFreak can stop calling Microsoft liars on their " Get the Facts " campaign and we can all assume all of Microsoft 's facts are n't facts until such time that they offer evidence to support their supposed facts .
Until then , we can all complain about how Microsoft is wasting everyone 's time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about a compromise?
ObsessiveMathsFreak can stop calling Microsoft liars on their "Get the Facts" campaign and we can all assume all of Microsoft's facts aren't facts until such time that they offer evidence to support their supposed facts.
Until then, we can all complain about how Microsoft is wasting everyone's time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28393417</id>
	<title>Re:Lies and Lying Liars.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245440820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cant say for sure for IE8, but a long time ago I recall loosing internet for months. During this period I was not able to surf for my all precious pr0n.</p><p>Imagine my surprise when I found that IE had a neat cache of all the pr0n i had browsed in the previous years!!! I was shocked, angered, and... i guess I was also a bit happy browsing my Cached pr0n until I got my internet access back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cant say for sure for IE8 , but a long time ago I recall loosing internet for months .
During this period I was not able to surf for my all precious pr0n.Imagine my surprise when I found that IE had a neat cache of all the pr0n i had browsed in the previous years ! ! !
I was shocked , angered , and... i guess I was also a bit happy browsing my Cached pr0n until I got my internet access back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cant say for sure for IE8, but a long time ago I recall loosing internet for months.
During this period I was not able to surf for my all precious pr0n.Imagine my surprise when I found that IE had a neat cache of all the pr0n i had browsed in the previous years!!!
I was shocked, angered, and... i guess I was also a bit happy browsing my Cached pr0n until I got my internet access back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28393077</id>
	<title>Re:Did you notice the browsers they used?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245439620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great post man, maybe there arguments aren't so off base against those builds...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great post man , maybe there arguments are n't so off base against those builds.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great post man, maybe there arguments aren't so off base against those builds...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28391783</id>
	<title>They're not lying, just cleverly vague</title>
	<author>malevolentjelly</author>
	<datestamp>1245434040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, I am going to attempt to swim up river here and look at this analytically instead of joining into this insane self-righteous Mozilla/Google circle-jerk.</p><p>Let's go down the list:</p><p>Security - They're correct in asserting they have better phishing and malware protection. There's no dispute over this, actually. Their phishing protection is the best. IE 8 is extrremely sandboxed, perhaps even moreso than Firefox... so there's no glaring security holes, but note that they're not mentioning sandboxing so that they don't have to mention Chrome. They would lose to Chrome on that one.</p><p>Privacy - Although Chrome has an equivalent of inPrivate browsing, Firefox still has no built-in porn mode. Furthermore, inPrivate filtering seems to be IE 8 unique.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>What is InPrivate Filtering?</p><p>InPrivate Filtering helps prevent website content providers from collecting information about sites you visit. Here's how it works.</p><p>Many webpages use content&#226;"such as advertisements, maps, or web analysis tools&#226;"from websites other than the one you are visiting. These websites are called content providers or third-party websites. When you visit a website with third-party content, some information about you is sent to the content provider. If a content provider offers content to a large number of the websites you visit, the content provider could develop a profile of your browsing preferences. Profiles of browsing preferences can be used in a variety of ways, including for analysis and serving targeted advertisements.</p><p>Usually this third-party content is displayed seamlessly, such as in an embedded video or image. The content appears to originate from the website you originally went to, so you may not know that another website might be able to see where you are surfing. Web analysis or web measurement tools report website visitors' browsing habits, and are not always obvious to you. While these tools can sometimes appear as visible content (such as a visitor counter, for example), they are often not visible to users, as is often the case with web beacons. Web beacons are typically single-pixel transparent images whose sole purpose is to track website usage, and they do not appear as visible content.</p><p>InPrivate Filtering works by analyzing web content on the webpages you visit, and if it sees the same content being used on a number of websites, it will give you the option to allow or block that content. You can also choose to have InPrivate Filtering automatically block any content provider or third-party website it detects, or you can choose to turn off InPrivate Filtering.</p></div><p>Althought I am sure Firefox can have this by extension, it's not there by default. Same goes for Chrome- this is a robust privacy feature which you would not find in minimalist Chrome.</p><p>Ease of Use - This is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it? Accelerators are pretty cool if you want to customize yourself a quick browsing environment... and they can be written by users. Think of them as modern less ugly web toolbars. This is only true if common users find this model easier than Firefox's wacky extension model or Chrome's nonexistent one.</p><p>Web Standards - They're correct, once more. They do support established standards better but fail to support as many popular emerging drafts. American web developers just love using bleeding edge emerging drafts in web design, don't they?</p><p>Developer Tools - This is a matter of opinion once more. Do Firefox or Chrome have a javascript profiler? If they don't, then they're not lying. Just stating an opinion on what's important.</p><p>Reliability - Okay, this is true again. Chrome likes to crash in a really ugly unrecoverable way and Firefox just takes out the entire browser when a page misbehaves. However, despite IE's tab isolation, it's still quite possible for a bad tab to take out the browser. So, this is correct as they state it but perhaps misleading.</p><p>Customizability - They are pushing forth their customization features as comparable with other browsers, not superior. There's nothing wrong with that. They claim more functionality out of the box then Firefox... they're correct.</p><p>Compatibility - This is true when you count Asia!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) They're flexing their IE 5 compatibility here. This is correct in the most infuriating way to modern webtrash types.</p><p>Manageability - Okay, IE has always destroyed Firefox and Chrome in enterprise management tools, etc. This is a no brainer. True and justified.</p><p>Performance - Well, given that most of the web is not a javascript benchmark, this is up in the air. They might lag behind on javascript, but that only affects sites like Gmail or Slashdot (which is the most awful clusterfuck of dynamic content the world has ever seen), whereas regular sites like BBC News or NYTimes or something will benefit from IE 8's superior page-load times. So, this is a wash. In real world terms, Chrome may be a faster web application environment, but for the popular web they are pretty well tied. It's a good thing they're not comparing to Opera here.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>So, as far as I can tell, they're not lying here. There's omission, perhaps even slightly deceptive positions on which features really matter-- but they're not lying. This is a cleverly picked list of categories where they can put IE's good face forward. This is what marketing people are paid to do... Mozilla and Google do the same kind of bullshit for their browsers. I think this marketing blurb is on slashdot just so you people can frantically complain and preach to the choir about Mozilla's superiority... it's just sad. This isn't even a tech article.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , I am going to attempt to swim up river here and look at this analytically instead of joining into this insane self-righteous Mozilla/Google circle-jerk.Let 's go down the list : Security - They 're correct in asserting they have better phishing and malware protection .
There 's no dispute over this , actually .
Their phishing protection is the best .
IE 8 is extrremely sandboxed , perhaps even moreso than Firefox... so there 's no glaring security holes , but note that they 're not mentioning sandboxing so that they do n't have to mention Chrome .
They would lose to Chrome on that one.Privacy - Although Chrome has an equivalent of inPrivate browsing , Firefox still has no built-in porn mode .
Furthermore , inPrivate filtering seems to be IE 8 unique.What is InPrivate Filtering ? InPrivate Filtering helps prevent website content providers from collecting information about sites you visit .
Here 's how it works.Many webpages use content   " such as advertisements , maps , or web analysis tools   " from websites other than the one you are visiting .
These websites are called content providers or third-party websites .
When you visit a website with third-party content , some information about you is sent to the content provider .
If a content provider offers content to a large number of the websites you visit , the content provider could develop a profile of your browsing preferences .
Profiles of browsing preferences can be used in a variety of ways , including for analysis and serving targeted advertisements.Usually this third-party content is displayed seamlessly , such as in an embedded video or image .
The content appears to originate from the website you originally went to , so you may not know that another website might be able to see where you are surfing .
Web analysis or web measurement tools report website visitors ' browsing habits , and are not always obvious to you .
While these tools can sometimes appear as visible content ( such as a visitor counter , for example ) , they are often not visible to users , as is often the case with web beacons .
Web beacons are typically single-pixel transparent images whose sole purpose is to track website usage , and they do not appear as visible content.InPrivate Filtering works by analyzing web content on the webpages you visit , and if it sees the same content being used on a number of websites , it will give you the option to allow or block that content .
You can also choose to have InPrivate Filtering automatically block any content provider or third-party website it detects , or you can choose to turn off InPrivate Filtering.Althought I am sure Firefox can have this by extension , it 's not there by default .
Same goes for Chrome- this is a robust privacy feature which you would not find in minimalist Chrome.Ease of Use - This is in the eye of the beholder , is n't it ?
Accelerators are pretty cool if you want to customize yourself a quick browsing environment... and they can be written by users .
Think of them as modern less ugly web toolbars .
This is only true if common users find this model easier than Firefox 's wacky extension model or Chrome 's nonexistent one.Web Standards - They 're correct , once more .
They do support established standards better but fail to support as many popular emerging drafts .
American web developers just love using bleeding edge emerging drafts in web design , do n't they ? Developer Tools - This is a matter of opinion once more .
Do Firefox or Chrome have a javascript profiler ?
If they do n't , then they 're not lying .
Just stating an opinion on what 's important.Reliability - Okay , this is true again .
Chrome likes to crash in a really ugly unrecoverable way and Firefox just takes out the entire browser when a page misbehaves .
However , despite IE 's tab isolation , it 's still quite possible for a bad tab to take out the browser .
So , this is correct as they state it but perhaps misleading.Customizability - They are pushing forth their customization features as comparable with other browsers , not superior .
There 's nothing wrong with that .
They claim more functionality out of the box then Firefox... they 're correct.Compatibility - This is true when you count Asia !
: ) They 're flexing their IE 5 compatibility here .
This is correct in the most infuriating way to modern webtrash types.Manageability - Okay , IE has always destroyed Firefox and Chrome in enterprise management tools , etc .
This is a no brainer .
True and justified.Performance - Well , given that most of the web is not a javascript benchmark , this is up in the air .
They might lag behind on javascript , but that only affects sites like Gmail or Slashdot ( which is the most awful clusterfuck of dynamic content the world has ever seen ) , whereas regular sites like BBC News or NYTimes or something will benefit from IE 8 's superior page-load times .
So , this is a wash. In real world terms , Chrome may be a faster web application environment , but for the popular web they are pretty well tied .
It 's a good thing they 're not comparing to Opera here .
: ) So , as far as I can tell , they 're not lying here .
There 's omission , perhaps even slightly deceptive positions on which features really matter-- but they 're not lying .
This is a cleverly picked list of categories where they can put IE 's good face forward .
This is what marketing people are paid to do... Mozilla and Google do the same kind of bullshit for their browsers .
I think this marketing blurb is on slashdot just so you people can frantically complain and preach to the choir about Mozilla 's superiority... it 's just sad .
This is n't even a tech article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, I am going to attempt to swim up river here and look at this analytically instead of joining into this insane self-righteous Mozilla/Google circle-jerk.Let's go down the list:Security - They're correct in asserting they have better phishing and malware protection.
There's no dispute over this, actually.
Their phishing protection is the best.
IE 8 is extrremely sandboxed, perhaps even moreso than Firefox... so there's no glaring security holes, but note that they're not mentioning sandboxing so that they don't have to mention Chrome.
They would lose to Chrome on that one.Privacy - Although Chrome has an equivalent of inPrivate browsing, Firefox still has no built-in porn mode.
Furthermore, inPrivate filtering seems to be IE 8 unique.What is InPrivate Filtering?InPrivate Filtering helps prevent website content providers from collecting information about sites you visit.
Here's how it works.Many webpages use contentâ"such as advertisements, maps, or web analysis toolsâ"from websites other than the one you are visiting.
These websites are called content providers or third-party websites.
When you visit a website with third-party content, some information about you is sent to the content provider.
If a content provider offers content to a large number of the websites you visit, the content provider could develop a profile of your browsing preferences.
Profiles of browsing preferences can be used in a variety of ways, including for analysis and serving targeted advertisements.Usually this third-party content is displayed seamlessly, such as in an embedded video or image.
The content appears to originate from the website you originally went to, so you may not know that another website might be able to see where you are surfing.
Web analysis or web measurement tools report website visitors' browsing habits, and are not always obvious to you.
While these tools can sometimes appear as visible content (such as a visitor counter, for example), they are often not visible to users, as is often the case with web beacons.
Web beacons are typically single-pixel transparent images whose sole purpose is to track website usage, and they do not appear as visible content.InPrivate Filtering works by analyzing web content on the webpages you visit, and if it sees the same content being used on a number of websites, it will give you the option to allow or block that content.
You can also choose to have InPrivate Filtering automatically block any content provider or third-party website it detects, or you can choose to turn off InPrivate Filtering.Althought I am sure Firefox can have this by extension, it's not there by default.
Same goes for Chrome- this is a robust privacy feature which you would not find in minimalist Chrome.Ease of Use - This is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?
Accelerators are pretty cool if you want to customize yourself a quick browsing environment... and they can be written by users.
Think of them as modern less ugly web toolbars.
This is only true if common users find this model easier than Firefox's wacky extension model or Chrome's nonexistent one.Web Standards - They're correct, once more.
They do support established standards better but fail to support as many popular emerging drafts.
American web developers just love using bleeding edge emerging drafts in web design, don't they?Developer Tools - This is a matter of opinion once more.
Do Firefox or Chrome have a javascript profiler?
If they don't, then they're not lying.
Just stating an opinion on what's important.Reliability - Okay, this is true again.
Chrome likes to crash in a really ugly unrecoverable way and Firefox just takes out the entire browser when a page misbehaves.
However, despite IE's tab isolation, it's still quite possible for a bad tab to take out the browser.
So, this is correct as they state it but perhaps misleading.Customizability - They are pushing forth their customization features as comparable with other browsers, not superior.
There's nothing wrong with that.
They claim more functionality out of the box then Firefox... they're correct.Compatibility - This is true when you count Asia!
:) They're flexing their IE 5 compatibility here.
This is correct in the most infuriating way to modern webtrash types.Manageability - Okay, IE has always destroyed Firefox and Chrome in enterprise management tools, etc.
This is a no brainer.
True and justified.Performance - Well, given that most of the web is not a javascript benchmark, this is up in the air.
They might lag behind on javascript, but that only affects sites like Gmail or Slashdot (which is the most awful clusterfuck of dynamic content the world has ever seen), whereas regular sites like BBC News or NYTimes or something will benefit from IE 8's superior page-load times.
So, this is a wash. In real world terms, Chrome may be a faster web application environment, but for the popular web they are pretty well tied.
It's a good thing they're not comparing to Opera here.
:)So, as far as I can tell, they're not lying here.
There's omission, perhaps even slightly deceptive positions on which features really matter-- but they're not lying.
This is a cleverly picked list of categories where they can put IE's good face forward.
This is what marketing people are paid to do... Mozilla and Google do the same kind of bullshit for their browsers.
I think this marketing blurb is on slashdot just so you people can frantically complain and preach to the choir about Mozilla's superiority... it's just sad.
This isn't even a tech article.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389443</id>
	<title>This is crazy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245424260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone knows that if you want to get the facts on Microsoft the place to go is Slashdork.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone knows that if you want to get the facts on Microsoft the place to go is Slashdork .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone knows that if you want to get the facts on Microsoft the place to go is Slashdork.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28390039</id>
	<title>IE is a poor development platfrom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245426600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The  main Issue I have as a developer with the IE line of browsers is the issue they ALL have with releasing memory unless the page is reloaded.</p><p>In today's world AJAX applications are starting to become more and more prevelant and with an AJAX app the page may never be refreshed. This leads to huge memory leaks since IE doesn't clean up some of the dereferenced objects until the page is reloaded. Even if you are very careful with your code and clean up after yourself you will get some huge leaks. If the browser is the development platform of the future, IE8 has a long way to go to even be competitive with FF/Chrome.</p><p>I think the IE familiy will quickly fall to the wayside if they don't fix this issue, and FF/Chrome will become the only viable platform for web based AJX apps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The main Issue I have as a developer with the IE line of browsers is the issue they ALL have with releasing memory unless the page is reloaded.In today 's world AJAX applications are starting to become more and more prevelant and with an AJAX app the page may never be refreshed .
This leads to huge memory leaks since IE does n't clean up some of the dereferenced objects until the page is reloaded .
Even if you are very careful with your code and clean up after yourself you will get some huge leaks .
If the browser is the development platform of the future , IE8 has a long way to go to even be competitive with FF/Chrome.I think the IE familiy will quickly fall to the wayside if they do n't fix this issue , and FF/Chrome will become the only viable platform for web based AJX apps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The  main Issue I have as a developer with the IE line of browsers is the issue they ALL have with releasing memory unless the page is reloaded.In today's world AJAX applications are starting to become more and more prevelant and with an AJAX app the page may never be refreshed.
This leads to huge memory leaks since IE doesn't clean up some of the dereferenced objects until the page is reloaded.
Even if you are very careful with your code and clean up after yourself you will get some huge leaks.
If the browser is the development platform of the future, IE8 has a long way to go to even be competitive with FF/Chrome.I think the IE familiy will quickly fall to the wayside if they don't fix this issue, and FF/Chrome will become the only viable platform for web based AJX apps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28390865</id>
	<title>Desperation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245430320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you seen Microsoft attempt to bribe Aussies into downloading IE8:</p><p><a href="http://www.microsoft.com/australia/ie8/competition/default.aspx" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.microsoft.com/australia/ie8/competition/default.aspx</a> [microsoft.com]</p><p>A few days ago, if you read the page with a different browser you'd get a custom insult, like "boring Safari" or "old FireFox"... today they've toned it down. But the page still has the disclaimer on the bottom that "it's not as stupid as it sounds."</p><p>Why yes, Microsoft, it is.</p><p>Search Twitter for "@tengrand\_IE8" to see just how much love Microsoft is getting out of this campaign.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you seen Microsoft attempt to bribe Aussies into downloading IE8 : http : //www.microsoft.com/australia/ie8/competition/default.aspx [ microsoft.com ] A few days ago , if you read the page with a different browser you 'd get a custom insult , like " boring Safari " or " old FireFox " ... today they 've toned it down .
But the page still has the disclaimer on the bottom that " it 's not as stupid as it sounds .
" Why yes , Microsoft , it is.Search Twitter for " @ tengrand \ _IE8 " to see just how much love Microsoft is getting out of this campaign .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you seen Microsoft attempt to bribe Aussies into downloading IE8:http://www.microsoft.com/australia/ie8/competition/default.aspx [microsoft.com]A few days ago, if you read the page with a different browser you'd get a custom insult, like "boring Safari" or "old FireFox"... today they've toned it down.
But the page still has the disclaimer on the bottom that "it's not as stupid as it sounds.
"Why yes, Microsoft, it is.Search Twitter for "@tengrand\_IE8" to see just how much love Microsoft is getting out of this campaign.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28396297</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it...</title>
	<author>man\_of\_mr\_e</author>
	<datestamp>1245408420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Fact: Internet Exploiter is PART OF THE USER INTERFACE of every windows operating system since 95</i></p><p>False.  IE was removed from the UI in Vista, and is still not part of the UI in 7.</p><p><i>Fact: You can't uninstall IE without effecting your core operating system functionality. (Windows updates, programs that use IE's rendering engine for their own user interface - antivirus software, I'm looking at you!)</i></p><p>False again, As of Vista, Windows update and Explorer no longer depend on IE.  Some apps may still depend on the rendering engine, but that's used only as a library, not part of the OS.</p><p><i>Fact: A VAST majority of Windows users have automatic updates enabled by default and will receive IE8 whether they like it or not</i></p><p>False yet again, IE8 does not install automatically.  You have to agree to do so.</p><p><i>When IE8 first became a "Critical Windows update" and customers were installing it, we were inundated with fxxked computers that lost network connectivity, or crashed, or ran dog slow.</i></p><p>Microsoft did not make IE8 a critical update, they made it an "important" one and they did not do so immediately and published quite clearly tools to disable system from treating it as such.  If you had half a clue how to do your job you would know about them.  Depsite IE8 being an important update, it requires the end users to accept the install for it to install, and it will never do so during automatic updates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fact : Internet Exploiter is PART OF THE USER INTERFACE of every windows operating system since 95False .
IE was removed from the UI in Vista , and is still not part of the UI in 7.Fact : You ca n't uninstall IE without effecting your core operating system functionality .
( Windows updates , programs that use IE 's rendering engine for their own user interface - antivirus software , I 'm looking at you !
) False again , As of Vista , Windows update and Explorer no longer depend on IE .
Some apps may still depend on the rendering engine , but that 's used only as a library , not part of the OS.Fact : A VAST majority of Windows users have automatic updates enabled by default and will receive IE8 whether they like it or notFalse yet again , IE8 does not install automatically .
You have to agree to do so.When IE8 first became a " Critical Windows update " and customers were installing it , we were inundated with fxxked computers that lost network connectivity , or crashed , or ran dog slow.Microsoft did not make IE8 a critical update , they made it an " important " one and they did not do so immediately and published quite clearly tools to disable system from treating it as such .
If you had half a clue how to do your job you would know about them .
Depsite IE8 being an important update , it requires the end users to accept the install for it to install , and it will never do so during automatic updates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fact: Internet Exploiter is PART OF THE USER INTERFACE of every windows operating system since 95False.
IE was removed from the UI in Vista, and is still not part of the UI in 7.Fact: You can't uninstall IE without effecting your core operating system functionality.
(Windows updates, programs that use IE's rendering engine for their own user interface - antivirus software, I'm looking at you!
)False again, As of Vista, Windows update and Explorer no longer depend on IE.
Some apps may still depend on the rendering engine, but that's used only as a library, not part of the OS.Fact: A VAST majority of Windows users have automatic updates enabled by default and will receive IE8 whether they like it or notFalse yet again, IE8 does not install automatically.
You have to agree to do so.When IE8 first became a "Critical Windows update" and customers were installing it, we were inundated with fxxked computers that lost network connectivity, or crashed, or ran dog slow.Microsoft did not make IE8 a critical update, they made it an "important" one and they did not do so immediately and published quite clearly tools to disable system from treating it as such.
If you had half a clue how to do your job you would know about them.
Depsite IE8 being an important update, it requires the end users to accept the install for it to install, and it will never do so during automatic updates.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28420005</id>
	<title>Once again this proves...</title>
	<author>Nyder</author>
	<datestamp>1245676800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... that we got some good weed here in Seattle.</p><p>=)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... that we got some good weed here in Seattle. = )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... that we got some good weed here in Seattle.=)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388619</id>
	<title>Get the facts - New tab latency</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245420780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, Microsoft. You asked for it. The fundamental action performed in a multi-tabbed application is..., well, opening new tabs. IE8 is the slowest to open a new tab after clicking Ctrl-T compared to any browser. I am wondering if this got factored into the "performance" category.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , Microsoft .
You asked for it .
The fundamental action performed in a multi-tabbed application is... , well , opening new tabs .
IE8 is the slowest to open a new tab after clicking Ctrl-T compared to any browser .
I am wondering if this got factored into the " performance " category .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, Microsoft.
You asked for it.
The fundamental action performed in a multi-tabbed application is..., well, opening new tabs.
IE8 is the slowest to open a new tab after clicking Ctrl-T compared to any browser.
I am wondering if this got factored into the "performance" category.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389217</id>
	<title>R U fucking kidding me?</title>
	<author>Biswalt</author>
	<datestamp>1245423240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Knowing the top speed of a car doesn't tell you how fast you can drive in rush hour. To actually see the difference in page loads between all three browsers, you need slow-motion video. This one&#226;(TM)s also a tie."  - What the fuck does this even mean?!?  Whenever a new browser comes out I load up a wikipedia page to see how it handles text, hulu for video, and ESPN to see how it handles rotating ads.  The browser that I found that works the fastest with the lowest memory usage is Opera.  And that was out of Firefox, IE7, Chrome, and Opera.  But my big problem with this statement is that Micrsoft gives itself a check on performance on the argument that chrome and firefox are only a little faster?!?  Seriously?!?  How do you acknowledge that your competitor has you beat and still give yourself the check?
</p><p>
"Only Internet Explorer 8 has both tab isolation and crash recovery features; Firefox and Chrome have one or the other."  But Opera has both, so it's not like IE8 is the only browser with these features.
</p><p>
And how does IE8 even lay a claim to the most security.  It's a very well known fact that nearly every bit of malware is written for IE browsers b/c of the share of the marketplace they have.  Last time I checked there was almost no malware written to exploit chrome, only a few for firefox, and lesser known browsers like Opera, and Konqueror had none.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Knowing the top speed of a car does n't tell you how fast you can drive in rush hour .
To actually see the difference in page loads between all three browsers , you need slow-motion video .
This one   ( TM ) s also a tie .
" - What the fuck does this even mean ? ! ?
Whenever a new browser comes out I load up a wikipedia page to see how it handles text , hulu for video , and ESPN to see how it handles rotating ads .
The browser that I found that works the fastest with the lowest memory usage is Opera .
And that was out of Firefox , IE7 , Chrome , and Opera .
But my big problem with this statement is that Micrsoft gives itself a check on performance on the argument that chrome and firefox are only a little faster ? ! ?
Seriously ? ! ? How do you acknowledge that your competitor has you beat and still give yourself the check ?
" Only Internet Explorer 8 has both tab isolation and crash recovery features ; Firefox and Chrome have one or the other .
" But Opera has both , so it 's not like IE8 is the only browser with these features .
And how does IE8 even lay a claim to the most security .
It 's a very well known fact that nearly every bit of malware is written for IE browsers b/c of the share of the marketplace they have .
Last time I checked there was almost no malware written to exploit chrome , only a few for firefox , and lesser known browsers like Opera , and Konqueror had none .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Knowing the top speed of a car doesn't tell you how fast you can drive in rush hour.
To actually see the difference in page loads between all three browsers, you need slow-motion video.
This oneâ(TM)s also a tie.
"  - What the fuck does this even mean?!?
Whenever a new browser comes out I load up a wikipedia page to see how it handles text, hulu for video, and ESPN to see how it handles rotating ads.
The browser that I found that works the fastest with the lowest memory usage is Opera.
And that was out of Firefox, IE7, Chrome, and Opera.
But my big problem with this statement is that Micrsoft gives itself a check on performance on the argument that chrome and firefox are only a little faster?!?
Seriously?!?  How do you acknowledge that your competitor has you beat and still give yourself the check?
"Only Internet Explorer 8 has both tab isolation and crash recovery features; Firefox and Chrome have one or the other.
"  But Opera has both, so it's not like IE8 is the only browser with these features.
And how does IE8 even lay a claim to the most security.
It's a very well known fact that nearly every bit of malware is written for IE browsers b/c of the share of the marketplace they have.
Last time I checked there was almost no malware written to exploit chrome, only a few for firefox, and lesser known browsers like Opera, and Konqueror had none.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28392277</id>
	<title>Re:Did you notice the browsers they used?</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1245436320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IE8 is not an RC anymore, it was released not long ago. Do you think that IE8 final will compare differently than IE8 RC (discounting the obvious bullshit in that table, like the "performance" or "web standards" lines)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IE8 is not an RC anymore , it was released not long ago .
Do you think that IE8 final will compare differently than IE8 RC ( discounting the obvious bullshit in that table , like the " performance " or " web standards " lines ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE8 is not an RC anymore, it was released not long ago.
Do you think that IE8 final will compare differently than IE8 RC (discounting the obvious bullshit in that table, like the "performance" or "web standards" lines)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389547</id>
	<title>Re:Two words: Active Directory</title>
	<author>lazyforker</author>
	<datestamp>1245424680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Furthermore it is easy for a competent admin to easily customize and lock down FF.  We just started rolling out FF to 10000 PCs globally.  We have a Windows PC/Active Directory environment.  GPOs were used to force the user's profile locations to be a network share, configure proxy settings etc.  For anyone who might be contemplating deploying FF I'd say "Yes - you can use your well-known Windows management tools such as SCCM and GPOs to deploy and manage Firefox.  All the settings, configuration etc are very well-documented.".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Furthermore it is easy for a competent admin to easily customize and lock down FF .
We just started rolling out FF to 10000 PCs globally .
We have a Windows PC/Active Directory environment .
GPOs were used to force the user 's profile locations to be a network share , configure proxy settings etc .
For anyone who might be contemplating deploying FF I 'd say " Yes - you can use your well-known Windows management tools such as SCCM and GPOs to deploy and manage Firefox .
All the settings , configuration etc are very well-documented .
" .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Furthermore it is easy for a competent admin to easily customize and lock down FF.
We just started rolling out FF to 10000 PCs globally.
We have a Windows PC/Active Directory environment.
GPOs were used to force the user's profile locations to be a network share, configure proxy settings etc.
For anyone who might be contemplating deploying FF I'd say "Yes - you can use your well-known Windows management tools such as SCCM and GPOs to deploy and manage Firefox.
All the settings, configuration etc are very well-documented.
".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388843</id>
	<title>I've got mod points...</title>
	<author>petrus4</author>
	<datestamp>1245421860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but a lot of the stupid posts attached to this article had 5 points, so down-modding them by 1 wouldn't have made much difference.</p><p>Also, it continues to become more and more painfully obvious that the new crop of Anonymous Cowards are WoW forum refugees; the least intelligent, educated, or mature community on the Internet, by a mile.  The trademark WoWisms in their text are all there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but a lot of the stupid posts attached to this article had 5 points , so down-modding them by 1 would n't have made much difference.Also , it continues to become more and more painfully obvious that the new crop of Anonymous Cowards are WoW forum refugees ; the least intelligent , educated , or mature community on the Internet , by a mile .
The trademark WoWisms in their text are all there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but a lot of the stupid posts attached to this article had 5 points, so down-modding them by 1 wouldn't have made much difference.Also, it continues to become more and more painfully obvious that the new crop of Anonymous Cowards are WoW forum refugees; the least intelligent, educated, or mature community on the Internet, by a mile.
The trademark WoWisms in their text are all there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28391269</id>
	<title>Re:Lies and Lying Liars.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245431940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They can get away with it because all the statements are sufficiently subjective and non-quantifiable to fall under any sort of false advertisement. You'll see this all the time. Our product x is better than the competition. These aren't facts at all, but just marketing crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They can get away with it because all the statements are sufficiently subjective and non-quantifiable to fall under any sort of false advertisement .
You 'll see this all the time .
Our product x is better than the competition .
These are n't facts at all , but just marketing crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can get away with it because all the statements are sufficiently subjective and non-quantifiable to fall under any sort of false advertisement.
You'll see this all the time.
Our product x is better than the competition.
These aren't facts at all, but just marketing crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28397305</id>
	<title>Re:They're not lying, just cleverly vague</title>
	<author>Bluebottel</author>
	<datestamp>1245413940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Compatibility - This is true when you count Asia!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) They're flexing their IE 5 compatibility here. This is correct in the most infuriating way to modern webtrash types.</i> <br>
This is like saying that a slice of pizza landing right next to your toilet is cleaner compared to a slice that you drop in it.
<br> <br>
I second the plea for less foam-at-the-mouth posts though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Compatibility - This is true when you count Asia !
: ) They 're flexing their IE 5 compatibility here .
This is correct in the most infuriating way to modern webtrash types .
This is like saying that a slice of pizza landing right next to your toilet is cleaner compared to a slice that you drop in it .
I second the plea for less foam-at-the-mouth posts though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Compatibility - This is true when you count Asia!
:) They're flexing their IE 5 compatibility here.
This is correct in the most infuriating way to modern webtrash types.
This is like saying that a slice of pizza landing right next to your toilet is cleaner compared to a slice that you drop in it.
I second the plea for less foam-at-the-mouth posts though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28391783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387889</id>
	<title>If you can't beat 'em, tie 'em?</title>
	<author>iCEBaLM</author>
	<datestamp>1245416760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's pretty hilarious on all of the categories which are ties that Microsoft admits the other browsers are better, but then discounts the reasons why because, according to them, it turns out that the category doesn't matter for some reason or another so, it's a TIE!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's pretty hilarious on all of the categories which are ties that Microsoft admits the other browsers are better , but then discounts the reasons why because , according to them , it turns out that the category does n't matter for some reason or another so , it 's a TIE !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's pretty hilarious on all of the categories which are ties that Microsoft admits the other browsers are better, but then discounts the reasons why because, according to them, it turns out that the category doesn't matter for some reason or another so, it's a TIE!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28390817</id>
	<title>IE8 measurement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245430020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ha ha ha ha, I am going to make my own ruler and then mine will be longer than anybody else's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ha ha ha ha , I am going to make my own ruler and then mine will be longer than anybody else 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ha ha ha ha, I am going to make my own ruler and then mine will be longer than anybody else's.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388729</id>
	<title>Lies and Lying Liars.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245421260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The story is, quite simply, that it is appallingly easy of companies to shamelessly and flagrantly lie, to produce the most obvious falsehoods, and for absolutely no one whatsoever to bother stating the obvious fact; that they are appalling liars.</p><p>It's not even deceptive wording, or qualified phrases we're talking about here. Most companies and organisations just come right out an lie nowadays. Some choice selections from the article. Note that the tick marks in the article next to browsers are replaced by stars here.</p><blockquote><div><p>Security - IE8: *  FF:  CR:  - Internet Explorer 8 takes the cake with better phishing and malware protection, as well as protection from emerging threats.</p></div></blockquote><p>A lie.</p><blockquote><div><p>Privacy - IE8: *  FF:  CR:  - InPrivate Browsing and InPrivate Filtering help Internet Explorer 8 claim privacy victory.</p></div> </blockquote><p>A falsehood.</p><blockquote><div><p>Web Standards - IE8: *  FF:  CR: * - It's a tie. Internet Explorer 8 passes more of the World Wide Web Consortium's CSS 2.1 test cases than any other browser, but Firefox 3 has more support for some evolving standards.</p></div></blockquote><p>A barefaced, shameless, utterly false lie. For you see, <i>there is no W3C CSS 2.1 test suite</i>. There is a <a href="http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/" title="w3.org"> <i>Pre-Alpha CSS 2.1 Test Suite</i></a> [w3.org], but upon further investigation it can be seen that the IE team themselves <a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/08/19/more-tests-submitted-to-the-w3c-css-2-1-test-suite.aspx" title="msdn.com">have submitted at least 3221 of the 3708 test cases</a> [msdn.com], or at least that was the case last August 18th.</p><p>Perhaps some would argue that these are merely exaggerations or omissions, not lies. I beg to differ. Taking these statements as truths would lead one to believe that IE has less exploits, less chance of exposing private data and a higher or equal chance of rendering web pages correctly that either Firefox or Chrome. All three conclusions are false. These are lies.</p><p>Some will believe them, but even sadder, more will not accept them as lies.</p><p>P.S.<br>My reply text is being squashed into a 25 character wide column to the right of a mass of grey. It would be great if Slashdot rendered properly these days.<br>P.P.S.<br>Perhaps I'll try it in IE8!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The story is , quite simply , that it is appallingly easy of companies to shamelessly and flagrantly lie , to produce the most obvious falsehoods , and for absolutely no one whatsoever to bother stating the obvious fact ; that they are appalling liars.It 's not even deceptive wording , or qualified phrases we 're talking about here .
Most companies and organisations just come right out an lie nowadays .
Some choice selections from the article .
Note that the tick marks in the article next to browsers are replaced by stars here.Security - IE8 : * FF : CR : - Internet Explorer 8 takes the cake with better phishing and malware protection , as well as protection from emerging threats.A lie.Privacy - IE8 : * FF : CR : - InPrivate Browsing and InPrivate Filtering help Internet Explorer 8 claim privacy victory .
A falsehood.Web Standards - IE8 : * FF : CR : * - It 's a tie .
Internet Explorer 8 passes more of the World Wide Web Consortium 's CSS 2.1 test cases than any other browser , but Firefox 3 has more support for some evolving standards.A barefaced , shameless , utterly false lie .
For you see , there is no W3C CSS 2.1 test suite .
There is a Pre-Alpha CSS 2.1 Test Suite [ w3.org ] , but upon further investigation it can be seen that the IE team themselves have submitted at least 3221 of the 3708 test cases [ msdn.com ] , or at least that was the case last August 18th.Perhaps some would argue that these are merely exaggerations or omissions , not lies .
I beg to differ .
Taking these statements as truths would lead one to believe that IE has less exploits , less chance of exposing private data and a higher or equal chance of rendering web pages correctly that either Firefox or Chrome .
All three conclusions are false .
These are lies.Some will believe them , but even sadder , more will not accept them as lies.P.S.My reply text is being squashed into a 25 character wide column to the right of a mass of grey .
It would be great if Slashdot rendered properly these days.P.P.S.Perhaps I 'll try it in IE8 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The story is, quite simply, that it is appallingly easy of companies to shamelessly and flagrantly lie, to produce the most obvious falsehoods, and for absolutely no one whatsoever to bother stating the obvious fact; that they are appalling liars.It's not even deceptive wording, or qualified phrases we're talking about here.
Most companies and organisations just come right out an lie nowadays.
Some choice selections from the article.
Note that the tick marks in the article next to browsers are replaced by stars here.Security - IE8: *  FF:  CR:  - Internet Explorer 8 takes the cake with better phishing and malware protection, as well as protection from emerging threats.A lie.Privacy - IE8: *  FF:  CR:  - InPrivate Browsing and InPrivate Filtering help Internet Explorer 8 claim privacy victory.
A falsehood.Web Standards - IE8: *  FF:  CR: * - It's a tie.
Internet Explorer 8 passes more of the World Wide Web Consortium's CSS 2.1 test cases than any other browser, but Firefox 3 has more support for some evolving standards.A barefaced, shameless, utterly false lie.
For you see, there is no W3C CSS 2.1 test suite.
There is a  Pre-Alpha CSS 2.1 Test Suite [w3.org], but upon further investigation it can be seen that the IE team themselves have submitted at least 3221 of the 3708 test cases [msdn.com], or at least that was the case last August 18th.Perhaps some would argue that these are merely exaggerations or omissions, not lies.
I beg to differ.
Taking these statements as truths would lead one to believe that IE has less exploits, less chance of exposing private data and a higher or equal chance of rendering web pages correctly that either Firefox or Chrome.
All three conclusions are false.
These are lies.Some will believe them, but even sadder, more will not accept them as lies.P.S.My reply text is being squashed into a 25 character wide column to the right of a mass of grey.
It would be great if Slashdot rendered properly these days.P.P.S.Perhaps I'll try it in IE8!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28399253</id>
	<title>The facts just changed</title>
	<author>falckon</author>
	<datestamp>1245433140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did anyone notice that their facts just changed? I thought facts were supposed to be universal truths. Here's the two examples I noticed, but I can tell the wording of some of the others changed too.</p><p>
Manageability:<br>
&lt; Neither Firefox nor Chrome provide guidance or enterprise tools. That's just not nice.<br>
&gt; Neither Firefox nor Chrome provide guidance or enterprise tools. That's just not nice.
</p><p>
Developer Tools:<br>
&lt; Of course Internet Explorer 8 wins this one. There's no need to install tools separately, and it offers better features like JavaScript profiling.<br>
&gt; Internet Explorer 8 has the most comprehensive developer tools built in, including HTML, CSS and JavaScript editing, but also JavaScript profiling; other browsers have developer tools available, but either require you to download them separately, or aren't as complete.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did anyone notice that their facts just changed ?
I thought facts were supposed to be universal truths .
Here 's the two examples I noticed , but I can tell the wording of some of the others changed too .
Manageability : &gt; Neither Firefox nor Chrome provide guidance or enterprise tools .
That 's just not nice .
Developer Tools : &gt; Internet Explorer 8 has the most comprehensive developer tools built in , including HTML , CSS and JavaScript editing , but also JavaScript profiling ; other browsers have developer tools available , but either require you to download them separately , or are n't as complete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did anyone notice that their facts just changed?
I thought facts were supposed to be universal truths.
Here's the two examples I noticed, but I can tell the wording of some of the others changed too.
Manageability:

&gt; Neither Firefox nor Chrome provide guidance or enterprise tools.
That's just not nice.
Developer Tools:

&gt; Internet Explorer 8 has the most comprehensive developer tools built in, including HTML, CSS and JavaScript editing, but also JavaScript profiling; other browsers have developer tools available, but either require you to download them separately, or aren't as complete.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388877</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245421980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>user agent switcher</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>user agent switcher</tokentext>
<sentencetext>user agent switcher</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388317</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28395065</id>
	<title>Fonts</title>
	<author>Wingfat</author>
	<datestamp>1245403260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> the fonts on 8 are so different then the 7 version i had to uninstall IE8 and put 7 back on becasue my wife has vision issues and was unable to read websites correcly with IE8.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the fonts on 8 are so different then the 7 version i had to uninstall IE8 and put 7 back on becasue my wife has vision issues and was unable to read websites correcly with IE8 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> the fonts on 8 are so different then the 7 version i had to uninstall IE8 and put 7 back on becasue my wife has vision issues and was unable to read websites correcly with IE8.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28400071</id>
	<title>It should have been...</title>
	<author>qmaqdk</author>
	<datestamp>1245489120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...get the "facts".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...get the " facts " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...get the "facts".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388357</id>
	<title>Speed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245419520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do they get off saying IE is the same speed... It's slower then Vista...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do they get off saying IE is the same speed... It 's slower then Vista.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do they get off saying IE is the same speed... It's slower then Vista...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389257</id>
	<title>Re:Two words: Active Directory</title>
	<author>jabuzz</author>
	<datestamp>1245423360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But I still cannot use a GP to modify Firefox's settings. For IE you can change proxy settings, add corporate certificates etc. all through GP. For wider Firefox deployment in large installations, they need to add these features, in addition to provide a MSI install from the source and not some third party.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But I still can not use a GP to modify Firefox 's settings .
For IE you can change proxy settings , add corporate certificates etc .
all through GP .
For wider Firefox deployment in large installations , they need to add these features , in addition to provide a MSI install from the source and not some third party .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I still cannot use a GP to modify Firefox's settings.
For IE you can change proxy settings, add corporate certificates etc.
all through GP.
For wider Firefox deployment in large installations, they need to add these features, in addition to provide a MSI install from the source and not some third party.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388987</id>
	<title>Re:Hrmm</title>
	<author>networkconsultant</author>
	<datestamp>1245422400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You found a $2 Hooker that plays with computers? Where?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You found a $ 2 Hooker that plays with computers ?
Where ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You found a $2 Hooker that plays with computers?
Where?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389075</id>
	<title>Re:MS. Here's a fact. This says it all...</title>
	<author>Nidi62</author>
	<datestamp>1245422760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ever think maybe IE7 was a PREVIOUS download for these people,  that they upgraded to IE7 then upgraded to IE8?  You are taking information and skewing it to fit your own bias and agenda, much as you and others are accusing Microsoft of doing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever think maybe IE7 was a PREVIOUS download for these people , that they upgraded to IE7 then upgraded to IE8 ?
You are taking information and skewing it to fit your own bias and agenda , much as you and others are accusing Microsoft of doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever think maybe IE7 was a PREVIOUS download for these people,  that they upgraded to IE7 then upgraded to IE8?
You are taking information and skewing it to fit your own bias and agenda, much as you and others are accusing Microsoft of doing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389061</id>
	<title>Re:Hrmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245422700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>* Browser able to crash and take your whole OS down faster than a $2 hooker - IE8</p></div><p>I have to admit to inexperience in this area.  For reference, how long does a $2 hooker typically take to crash an OS?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>* Browser able to crash and take your whole OS down faster than a $ 2 hooker - IE8I have to admit to inexperience in this area .
For reference , how long does a $ 2 hooker typically take to crash an OS ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>* Browser able to crash and take your whole OS down faster than a $2 hooker - IE8I have to admit to inexperience in this area.
For reference, how long does a $2 hooker typically take to crash an OS?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388459</id>
	<title>Re:IE8 performance?</title>
	<author>ElKry</author>
	<datestamp>1245420060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tried to open it with my firefox. What I got was:</p><p>"This websites requires Flash and JavaScript to be enabled. If your browser does not support both of these then simply continue to IdleThumbs"</p><p>and 6 scripts blocked by NoScript. Then I tried IE8, and I must say, the Firefox version was MUCH faster. Firefox is obviously vastly superior in the speed department.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried to open it with my firefox .
What I got was : " This websites requires Flash and JavaScript to be enabled .
If your browser does not support both of these then simply continue to IdleThumbs " and 6 scripts blocked by NoScript .
Then I tried IE8 , and I must say , the Firefox version was MUCH faster .
Firefox is obviously vastly superior in the speed department .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried to open it with my firefox.
What I got was:"This websites requires Flash and JavaScript to be enabled.
If your browser does not support both of these then simply continue to IdleThumbs"and 6 scripts blocked by NoScript.
Then I tried IE8, and I must say, the Firefox version was MUCH faster.
Firefox is obviously vastly superior in the speed department.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388263</id>
	<title>Re:what a laugh</title>
	<author>KeX3</author>
	<datestamp>1245419040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>IE is going to have to work damn hard to get rid of that reputation amoungst developers</p></div><p>IE doesn't <strong>need</strong> to get rid of that reputation amongst developers. As long as a majority of the end-users uses IE (hell, one site I worked on recently had more IE6-users that all combined firefox-users), Microsoft doesn't have to care at all, because developers simply have to bend over and make sure it works.<br> <br>If IE somehow got that reputation among the average joe, on the other hand, then things would probably change.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IE is going to have to work damn hard to get rid of that reputation amoungst developersIE does n't need to get rid of that reputation amongst developers .
As long as a majority of the end-users uses IE ( hell , one site I worked on recently had more IE6-users that all combined firefox-users ) , Microsoft does n't have to care at all , because developers simply have to bend over and make sure it works .
If IE somehow got that reputation among the average joe , on the other hand , then things would probably change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE is going to have to work damn hard to get rid of that reputation amoungst developersIE doesn't need to get rid of that reputation amongst developers.
As long as a majority of the end-users uses IE (hell, one site I worked on recently had more IE6-users that all combined firefox-users), Microsoft doesn't have to care at all, because developers simply have to bend over and make sure it works.
If IE somehow got that reputation among the average joe, on the other hand, then things would probably change.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387885</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389287</id>
	<title>Re:Lies and Lying Liars.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245423540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Note they also left out safari, and left out "performance" as a category.</p><p>Safari hits 100/100 on Acid 3, better than any other and nearly 5 times the score of IE8, and is also the current speed winner, and it's a snap to use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Note they also left out safari , and left out " performance " as a category.Safari hits 100/100 on Acid 3 , better than any other and nearly 5 times the score of IE8 , and is also the current speed winner , and it 's a snap to use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note they also left out safari, and left out "performance" as a category.Safari hits 100/100 on Acid 3, better than any other and nearly 5 times the score of IE8, and is also the current speed winner, and it's a snap to use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388849</id>
	<title>Re:what a laugh</title>
	<author>alan.briolat</author>
	<datestamp>1245421860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Damn right.  I think I'd kill myself if I had to do webdesign for a living.</p><p>Here are some nice example of IE7 failures I experienced recently while attempting to style a site:</p><p><a href="http://iris.codescape.net/~alan/IE-rendering-fail-3.png" title="codescape.net" rel="nofollow">http://iris.codescape.net/~alan/IE-rendering-fail-3.png</a> [codescape.net]<br><a href="http://iris.codescape.net/~alan/IE-rendering-fail-2.png" title="codescape.net" rel="nofollow">http://iris.codescape.net/~alan/IE-rendering-fail-2.png</a> [codescape.net]<br><a href="http://iris.codescape.net/~alan/Rendering-odd-one-out.png" title="codescape.net" rel="nofollow">http://iris.codescape.net/~alan/Rendering-odd-one-out.png</a> [codescape.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn right .
I think I 'd kill myself if I had to do webdesign for a living.Here are some nice example of IE7 failures I experienced recently while attempting to style a site : http : //iris.codescape.net/ ~ alan/IE-rendering-fail-3.png [ codescape.net ] http : //iris.codescape.net/ ~ alan/IE-rendering-fail-2.png [ codescape.net ] http : //iris.codescape.net/ ~ alan/Rendering-odd-one-out.png [ codescape.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn right.
I think I'd kill myself if I had to do webdesign for a living.Here are some nice example of IE7 failures I experienced recently while attempting to style a site:http://iris.codescape.net/~alan/IE-rendering-fail-3.png [codescape.net]http://iris.codescape.net/~alan/IE-rendering-fail-2.png [codescape.net]http://iris.codescape.net/~alan/Rendering-odd-one-out.png [codescape.net]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387885</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389539</id>
	<title>Re:Two words: Active Directory</title>
	<author>prefect42</author>
	<datestamp>1245424620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does rsyncing the pref.js across a few thousand machines not count?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does rsyncing the pref.js across a few thousand machines not count ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does rsyncing the pref.js across a few thousand machines not count?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28391713</id>
	<title>Re:Lies and Lying Liars.</title>
	<author>justindarc</author>
	<datestamp>1245433860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You need a citation!? I thought it was just obvious to everyone here. Anyways, here's a citation. Try viewing this in IE8 and you tell me how much you believe that they're better at web standards than the competition: <a href="http://acid3.acidtests.org/" title="acidtests.org" rel="nofollow">http://acid3.acidtests.org/</a> [acidtests.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>You need a citation ! ?
I thought it was just obvious to everyone here .
Anyways , here 's a citation .
Try viewing this in IE8 and you tell me how much you believe that they 're better at web standards than the competition : http : //acid3.acidtests.org/ [ acidtests.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You need a citation!?
I thought it was just obvious to everyone here.
Anyways, here's a citation.
Try viewing this in IE8 and you tell me how much you believe that they're better at web standards than the competition: http://acid3.acidtests.org/ [acidtests.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28396429</id>
	<title>Re:Can we come up with coherent rebuttals?</title>
	<author>man\_of\_mr\_e</author>
	<datestamp>1245409080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>IE8 does much worse at ACID3, so it is less standards compliant.</i></p><p>Apart from the fact that, even as the WaSP project admits, the ACID tests are not standards compliance tests, the parts of ACID3 that IE8 fails are not part of HTML or CSS 2.1, but rather CSS3 (not a standard yet) and DOM level 2, SVG, data url's, etc..</p><p>Support for those technologies is important, of course, but MS didn't claim total standards compliance, they claimed better support for CSS 2.1.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IE8 does much worse at ACID3 , so it is less standards compliant.Apart from the fact that , even as the WaSP project admits , the ACID tests are not standards compliance tests , the parts of ACID3 that IE8 fails are not part of HTML or CSS 2.1 , but rather CSS3 ( not a standard yet ) and DOM level 2 , SVG , data url 's , etc..Support for those technologies is important , of course , but MS did n't claim total standards compliance , they claimed better support for CSS 2.1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE8 does much worse at ACID3, so it is less standards compliant.Apart from the fact that, even as the WaSP project admits, the ACID tests are not standards compliance tests, the parts of ACID3 that IE8 fails are not part of HTML or CSS 2.1, but rather CSS3 (not a standard yet) and DOM level 2, SVG, data url's, etc..Support for those technologies is important, of course, but MS didn't claim total standards compliance, they claimed better support for CSS 2.1.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388599</id>
	<title>MS. Here's a fact. This says it all...</title>
	<author>hAckz0r</author>
	<datestamp>1245420660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the Download Center "Windows Internet Explorer 8 for Windows XP" page:<blockquote><div><p>Others who downloaded Windows Internet Explorer 8 for Windows XP also downloaded:</p><p>

   1. Windows Internet Explorer 7 for Windows XP</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

The number one thing downloaded with IE8 is its successor IE7, meaning that they either automatically don't trust that IE8 will work correctly or that know they want to revert back to IE7 after trying it. Take your pick. Of course, if you wait until AFTER you screw up your OS its too late to be able to download the required downloader needed to fix the problem, so I concur.  </p><p>

Am I convinced yet about IE8? Well, the javascript on that page completely stalled my current browser of choice while just trying to load that page. I had to actually turn off javascript and force a reload just so I could cut and paste the 'fact' above. So, tell me Microsoft, is that why I should be running IE8? </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the Download Center " Windows Internet Explorer 8 for Windows XP " page : Others who downloaded Windows Internet Explorer 8 for Windows XP also downloaded : 1 .
Windows Internet Explorer 7 for Windows XP The number one thing downloaded with IE8 is its successor IE7 , meaning that they either automatically do n't trust that IE8 will work correctly or that know they want to revert back to IE7 after trying it .
Take your pick .
Of course , if you wait until AFTER you screw up your OS its too late to be able to download the required downloader needed to fix the problem , so I concur .
Am I convinced yet about IE8 ?
Well , the javascript on that page completely stalled my current browser of choice while just trying to load that page .
I had to actually turn off javascript and force a reload just so I could cut and paste the 'fact ' above .
So , tell me Microsoft , is that why I should be running IE8 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the Download Center "Windows Internet Explorer 8 for Windows XP" page:Others who downloaded Windows Internet Explorer 8 for Windows XP also downloaded:

   1.
Windows Internet Explorer 7 for Windows XP


The number one thing downloaded with IE8 is its successor IE7, meaning that they either automatically don't trust that IE8 will work correctly or that know they want to revert back to IE7 after trying it.
Take your pick.
Of course, if you wait until AFTER you screw up your OS its too late to be able to download the required downloader needed to fix the problem, so I concur.
Am I convinced yet about IE8?
Well, the javascript on that page completely stalled my current browser of choice while just trying to load that page.
I had to actually turn off javascript and force a reload just so I could cut and paste the 'fact' above.
So, tell me Microsoft, is that why I should be running IE8? 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389945</id>
	<title>Vomit</title>
	<author>Sam36</author>
	<datestamp>1245426240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not only am I vomiting, I am also crying</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only am I vomiting , I am also crying</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only am I vomiting, I am also crying</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389511</id>
	<title>Re:It's Too Late, I'm Done with IE</title>
	<author>hot soldering iron</author>
	<datestamp>1245424500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep. Deal with it, bitches.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep .
Deal with it , bitches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep.
Deal with it, bitches.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388071</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387843</id>
	<title>It's Too Late, I'm Done with IE</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1245416520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sure, Firefox may win in sheer number of add-ons, but many of the customizations you'd want to download for Firefox are already a part of Internet Explorer 8 -- right out of the box.</p></div><p>Those Grapes are Sour ANYWAY! <br> <br>

And nothing is worse than this one:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Web Standards <br> <br>

It's a tie. Internet Explorer 8 passes <b>more of the World Wide Web Consortium's CSS 2.1 test cases than any other browser</b>, but Firefox 3 has more support for some evolving standards.</p></div><p>Did you hear that?  Because my head just fucking exploded.  <br> <br>

And what the hell does "Manageability" mean?  Rate at which the browser is able to be handled or controled?  What the hell?!  And their little quip for this one:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Neither Firefox nor Chrome provide guidance or enterprise tools. That's just not nice.</p></div><p>You know what's not nice?  Having to write in my freaking javascript if(IE){ do tons of fucked up shit } else { everybody else's predictable behavior }.  You know what else isn't nice?  The scourge of websites that will forever taint the web because you couldn't get your shit together for IE6 and then you let it fester for years.  <br> <br>

I am <i>so</i> done with internet explorer in any form.  This ridiculous campaign is just here to piss me off.  Microsoft has no one to blame but themselves for making me jaded and opposed to any form of IE.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , Firefox may win in sheer number of add-ons , but many of the customizations you 'd want to download for Firefox are already a part of Internet Explorer 8 -- right out of the box.Those Grapes are Sour ANYWAY !
And nothing is worse than this one : Web Standards It 's a tie .
Internet Explorer 8 passes more of the World Wide Web Consortium 's CSS 2.1 test cases than any other browser , but Firefox 3 has more support for some evolving standards.Did you hear that ?
Because my head just fucking exploded .
And what the hell does " Manageability " mean ?
Rate at which the browser is able to be handled or controled ?
What the hell ? !
And their little quip for this one : Neither Firefox nor Chrome provide guidance or enterprise tools .
That 's just not nice.You know what 's not nice ?
Having to write in my freaking javascript if ( IE ) { do tons of fucked up shit } else { everybody else 's predictable behavior } .
You know what else is n't nice ?
The scourge of websites that will forever taint the web because you could n't get your shit together for IE6 and then you let it fester for years .
I am so done with internet explorer in any form .
This ridiculous campaign is just here to piss me off .
Microsoft has no one to blame but themselves for making me jaded and opposed to any form of IE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, Firefox may win in sheer number of add-ons, but many of the customizations you'd want to download for Firefox are already a part of Internet Explorer 8 -- right out of the box.Those Grapes are Sour ANYWAY!
And nothing is worse than this one:Web Standards  

It's a tie.
Internet Explorer 8 passes more of the World Wide Web Consortium's CSS 2.1 test cases than any other browser, but Firefox 3 has more support for some evolving standards.Did you hear that?
Because my head just fucking exploded.
And what the hell does "Manageability" mean?
Rate at which the browser is able to be handled or controled?
What the hell?!
And their little quip for this one:Neither Firefox nor Chrome provide guidance or enterprise tools.
That's just not nice.You know what's not nice?
Having to write in my freaking javascript if(IE){ do tons of fucked up shit } else { everybody else's predictable behavior }.
You know what else isn't nice?
The scourge of websites that will forever taint the web because you couldn't get your shit together for IE6 and then you let it fester for years.
I am so done with internet explorer in any form.
This ridiculous campaign is just here to piss me off.
Microsoft has no one to blame but themselves for making me jaded and opposed to any form of IE.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388465</id>
	<title>Re:Translation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245420060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And yet when a Linux distro includes everything but the kitchen sink, that's helpful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And yet when a Linux distro includes everything but the kitchen sink , that 's helpful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yet when a Linux distro includes everything but the kitchen sink, that's helpful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28390581</id>
	<title>Customizability</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1245428940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sure, Firefox may win in sheer number of add-ons, but many of the customizations you'd want to download for Firefox are already a part of Internet Explorer 8 &#226;" right out of the box.</p> </div><ol> <li>In other words, Firefox is more customizable, but our default settings are awesome!</li><li>So, customizability is a tie, because although other browsers give you more options to customize the browser, Internet explorer takes some of the better ones and forces you to use them. Can't beat that logic!</li></ol></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , Firefox may win in sheer number of add-ons , but many of the customizations you 'd want to download for Firefox are already a part of Internet Explorer 8   " right out of the box .
In other words , Firefox is more customizable , but our default settings are awesome ! So , customizability is a tie , because although other browsers give you more options to customize the browser , Internet explorer takes some of the better ones and forces you to use them .
Ca n't beat that logic !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, Firefox may win in sheer number of add-ons, but many of the customizations you'd want to download for Firefox are already a part of Internet Explorer 8 â" right out of the box.
In other words, Firefox is more customizable, but our default settings are awesome!So, customizability is a tie, because although other browsers give you more options to customize the browser, Internet explorer takes some of the better ones and forces you to use them.
Can't beat that logic!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28398939</id>
	<title>I dont understand this</title>
	<author>moniker127</author>
	<datestamp>1245429300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are they being deliberately stupid, or do they actually believe the bullshit that they spew on that page?<br> <br>
<a href="http://experimentaldevelopment.com/devtools.jpg" title="experiment...opment.com">http://experimentaldevelopment.com/devtools.jpg</a> [experiment...opment.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are they being deliberately stupid , or do they actually believe the bullshit that they spew on that page ?
http : //experimentaldevelopment.com/devtools.jpg [ experiment...opment.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are they being deliberately stupid, or do they actually believe the bullshit that they spew on that page?
http://experimentaldevelopment.com/devtools.jpg [experiment...opment.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388501</id>
	<title>Re:IE8 and sharepoint</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245420180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>At some place, I use firefox and have to use IE7 for one single purpose: sharepoint. I installed IE8 once, and guess what, explorer view in sharepoint didn't work in IE8, only in IE7. So I had to install IE7 again. Conclusion: IE8 is useless. What a waste of time and energy to launch a campaign about that.</p></div><p>Do yourself a huge favour<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... ditch Sharepoint altogether and install Alfresco running on a Linux server. While you are at it, install OpenChange, CUPS and Samba 4 as well. Then you can use whatever platform and software you please, in any mixture or combination, on all the client machines, as many clients at a time as you please, all at no cost.</p><p>All problems solved.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At some place , I use firefox and have to use IE7 for one single purpose : sharepoint .
I installed IE8 once , and guess what , explorer view in sharepoint did n't work in IE8 , only in IE7 .
So I had to install IE7 again .
Conclusion : IE8 is useless .
What a waste of time and energy to launch a campaign about that.Do yourself a huge favour ... ditch Sharepoint altogether and install Alfresco running on a Linux server .
While you are at it , install OpenChange , CUPS and Samba 4 as well .
Then you can use whatever platform and software you please , in any mixture or combination , on all the client machines , as many clients at a time as you please , all at no cost.All problems solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At some place, I use firefox and have to use IE7 for one single purpose: sharepoint.
I installed IE8 once, and guess what, explorer view in sharepoint didn't work in IE8, only in IE7.
So I had to install IE7 again.
Conclusion: IE8 is useless.
What a waste of time and energy to launch a campaign about that.Do yourself a huge favour ... ditch Sharepoint altogether and install Alfresco running on a Linux server.
While you are at it, install OpenChange, CUPS and Samba 4 as well.
Then you can use whatever platform and software you please, in any mixture or combination, on all the client machines, as many clients at a time as you please, all at no cost.All problems solved.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389027</id>
	<title>Re:Lies and Lying Liars.</title>
	<author>afidel</author>
	<datestamp>1245422580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>My reply text is being squashed into a 25 character wide column to the right of a mass of grey. It would be great if Slashdot rendered properly these days.</i> <br> <br>

Looks fine in FF3.5b99 XP at 1024*768.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My reply text is being squashed into a 25 character wide column to the right of a mass of grey .
It would be great if Slashdot rendered properly these days .
Looks fine in FF3.5b99 XP at 1024 * 768 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My reply text is being squashed into a 25 character wide column to the right of a mass of grey.
It would be great if Slashdot rendered properly these days.
Looks fine in FF3.5b99 XP at 1024*768.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28390161</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245427140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Internet Explorer is clearly superior, Microsoft's independent and rigorous testing proves this.</p><p>Anybody who disagrees with the results is an "Internet Explorer Denier" - we are working with the German government to create a law against such viscous lies.... Oh, and, some cavemen brought down the twin towers using only a pair of box cutters and pure hatred.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Internet Explorer is clearly superior , Microsoft 's independent and rigorous testing proves this.Anybody who disagrees with the results is an " Internet Explorer Denier " - we are working with the German government to create a law against such viscous lies.... Oh , and , some cavemen brought down the twin towers using only a pair of box cutters and pure hatred .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Internet Explorer is clearly superior, Microsoft's independent and rigorous testing proves this.Anybody who disagrees with the results is an "Internet Explorer Denier" - we are working with the German government to create a law against such viscous lies.... Oh, and, some cavemen brought down the twin towers using only a pair of box cutters and pure hatred.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388539</id>
	<title>Re:what a laugh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245420360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What are standards anyways... if someone told me 65\% of users use IE and the rest use other browsers, which browser do you think I'm going to code to primarily? But regardless of that, IE8 has great improvements and has takin big steps towards "web standards", not to mention the snazzy developer tools built right into the browser and compatibility mode that helps verifying compatibility with IE7... i'll leave it at that</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What are standards anyways... if someone told me 65 \ % of users use IE and the rest use other browsers , which browser do you think I 'm going to code to primarily ?
But regardless of that , IE8 has great improvements and has takin big steps towards " web standards " , not to mention the snazzy developer tools built right into the browser and compatibility mode that helps verifying compatibility with IE7... i 'll leave it at that</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are standards anyways... if someone told me 65\% of users use IE and the rest use other browsers, which browser do you think I'm going to code to primarily?
But regardless of that, IE8 has great improvements and has takin big steps towards "web standards", not to mention the snazzy developer tools built right into the browser and compatibility mode that helps verifying compatibility with IE7... i'll leave it at that</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387885</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388597</id>
	<title>Re:I got the facts ...</title>
	<author>wljones</author>
	<datestamp>1245420660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A comparison chart drawn by Microsoft? Ho-hum.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A comparison chart drawn by Microsoft ?
Ho-hum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A comparison chart drawn by Microsoft?
Ho-hum.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388475</id>
	<title>Re:Two words: Active Directory</title>
	<author>eulernet</author>
	<datestamp>1245420120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firefox has a MSI version that can be deployed on a whole domain: <a href="http://www.frontmotion.com/Firefox/index.htm" title="frontmotion.com">http://www.frontmotion.com/Firefox/index.htm</a> [frontmotion.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox has a MSI version that can be deployed on a whole domain : http : //www.frontmotion.com/Firefox/index.htm [ frontmotion.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox has a MSI version that can be deployed on a whole domain: http://www.frontmotion.com/Firefox/index.htm [frontmotion.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28390189</id>
	<title>Re:Lies and Lying Liars.</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1245427260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My reply text is being squashed into a 25 character wide column to the right of a mass of grey. It would be great if Slashdot rendered properly these days.</p></div><p>Mine, too. Not every time, but when it happens, it's awfully annoying. Also, when it happened the first time, I didn't even notice the text field. It took me almost a minute to find my bearings.</p><p>Really, Slashdot, WTF? Are you guys trying to win The Most Pathetic Web Designers-award?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My reply text is being squashed into a 25 character wide column to the right of a mass of grey .
It would be great if Slashdot rendered properly these days.Mine , too .
Not every time , but when it happens , it 's awfully annoying .
Also , when it happened the first time , I did n't even notice the text field .
It took me almost a minute to find my bearings.Really , Slashdot , WTF ?
Are you guys trying to win The Most Pathetic Web Designers-award ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My reply text is being squashed into a 25 character wide column to the right of a mass of grey.
It would be great if Slashdot rendered properly these days.Mine, too.
Not every time, but when it happens, it's awfully annoying.
Also, when it happened the first time, I didn't even notice the text field.
It took me almost a minute to find my bearings.Really, Slashdot, WTF?
Are you guys trying to win The Most Pathetic Web Designers-award?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388583</id>
	<title>Age</title>
	<author>Ltap</author>
	<datestamp>1245420600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>IE's faults are more about age than anything else. As an internet user since the mid 90s, I can attest that, when IE became widespread, it was amazing when compared to Netscape, which was the sluggish and crashed often, although it did keep up with standards (something I didn't care about then, but appreciate now). IE now is much like the Netscape of yesteryear - the thing everyone used to use, but that they abandoned once they got a better alternative.
<p>Now, IE has been around so long that its every exploit is well-known and a lot of software (both malicious and innocent) is made specifically for it. I'll draw a lot of flak for it but Firefox now is approaching IE - it was once the amazingly fast super-browser that was bound to replace its predecessor, but now has been replaced in the hearts of many by the likes of Chrome, the even newer and faster browser. It's simple enough - the older a piece of software gets, the more bloated it gets and the more exploits are discovered for it.
</p><p>It's all about finding the right balance. I prefer Firefox because it has what I consider the best balance - supports newest standards, has lots of addons that are mostly unavailable for other browsers, and is still fairly fast. This rant was mostly unrelated to the topic, but I had to correct some people in the thread.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IE 's faults are more about age than anything else .
As an internet user since the mid 90s , I can attest that , when IE became widespread , it was amazing when compared to Netscape , which was the sluggish and crashed often , although it did keep up with standards ( something I did n't care about then , but appreciate now ) .
IE now is much like the Netscape of yesteryear - the thing everyone used to use , but that they abandoned once they got a better alternative .
Now , IE has been around so long that its every exploit is well-known and a lot of software ( both malicious and innocent ) is made specifically for it .
I 'll draw a lot of flak for it but Firefox now is approaching IE - it was once the amazingly fast super-browser that was bound to replace its predecessor , but now has been replaced in the hearts of many by the likes of Chrome , the even newer and faster browser .
It 's simple enough - the older a piece of software gets , the more bloated it gets and the more exploits are discovered for it .
It 's all about finding the right balance .
I prefer Firefox because it has what I consider the best balance - supports newest standards , has lots of addons that are mostly unavailable for other browsers , and is still fairly fast .
This rant was mostly unrelated to the topic , but I had to correct some people in the thread .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE's faults are more about age than anything else.
As an internet user since the mid 90s, I can attest that, when IE became widespread, it was amazing when compared to Netscape, which was the sluggish and crashed often, although it did keep up with standards (something I didn't care about then, but appreciate now).
IE now is much like the Netscape of yesteryear - the thing everyone used to use, but that they abandoned once they got a better alternative.
Now, IE has been around so long that its every exploit is well-known and a lot of software (both malicious and innocent) is made specifically for it.
I'll draw a lot of flak for it but Firefox now is approaching IE - it was once the amazingly fast super-browser that was bound to replace its predecessor, but now has been replaced in the hearts of many by the likes of Chrome, the even newer and faster browser.
It's simple enough - the older a piece of software gets, the more bloated it gets and the more exploits are discovered for it.
It's all about finding the right balance.
I prefer Firefox because it has what I consider the best balance - supports newest standards, has lots of addons that are mostly unavailable for other browsers, and is still fairly fast.
This rant was mostly unrelated to the topic, but I had to correct some people in the thread.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28391109</id>
	<title>Re:Who is the target audience?</title>
	<author>mdm-adph</author>
	<datestamp>1245431280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's for management, like always.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's for management , like always .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's for management, like always.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28394745</id>
	<title>Where were you M$ when standards were invented?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245402240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Microsoft put significant effort into make sure sites still work, even if they're designed for older versions of Internet Explorer, by giving users a Compatibility View button."<br>You didn't have to put in the effort if IE(8-x) was standards compliant to start with...</p><p>Embrace and Extend... You will pay for you bad karma!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Microsoft put significant effort into make sure sites still work , even if they 're designed for older versions of Internet Explorer , by giving users a Compatibility View button .
" You did n't have to put in the effort if IE ( 8-x ) was standards compliant to start with...Embrace and Extend... You will pay for you bad karma !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Microsoft put significant effort into make sure sites still work, even if they're designed for older versions of Internet Explorer, by giving users a Compatibility View button.
"You didn't have to put in the effort if IE(8-x) was standards compliant to start with...Embrace and Extend... You will pay for you bad karma!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389463</id>
	<title>This ain't the first nor the last time</title>
	<author>aaycumi</author>
	<datestamp>1245424320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is just as bad as the comparision they had for ubuntu vs. windows, saying that windows cost less; while deliberately choosing the most expensive options for ubuntu.

But this one is more to do with configurably for the sys admin I think. Still a festering pile of crap; main example being that in all standised tests I've run for chrome, IE8 and firefox IE8 was always last, no matter what the test. Chrome was the fastest for rending most webpages, especially JavaScript and firefox was a close second. So this just doesn't make any sense at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just as bad as the comparision they had for ubuntu vs. windows , saying that windows cost less ; while deliberately choosing the most expensive options for ubuntu .
But this one is more to do with configurably for the sys admin I think .
Still a festering pile of crap ; main example being that in all standised tests I 've run for chrome , IE8 and firefox IE8 was always last , no matter what the test .
Chrome was the fastest for rending most webpages , especially JavaScript and firefox was a close second .
So this just does n't make any sense at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just as bad as the comparision they had for ubuntu vs. windows, saying that windows cost less; while deliberately choosing the most expensive options for ubuntu.
But this one is more to do with configurably for the sys admin I think.
Still a festering pile of crap; main example being that in all standised tests I've run for chrome, IE8 and firefox IE8 was always last, no matter what the test.
Chrome was the fastest for rending most webpages, especially JavaScript and firefox was a close second.
So this just doesn't make any sense at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388969</id>
	<title>Web standards</title>
	<author>AlpineR</author>
	<datestamp>1245422340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What's so great about Internet Explorer 8?</p><p> <b>REASON 5 - See any site easily.</b> </p><p>View sites with ease, even if they were designed for an older browser, with one click on the Compatibility View button.</p></div> </blockquote><p>The first step on the road to recovery is admitting that you have a problem. Maybe Internet Explorer 8 is a born again standards compliant browser if it needs a special button to render sites designed for IE6.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's so great about Internet Explorer 8 ?
REASON 5 - See any site easily .
View sites with ease , even if they were designed for an older browser , with one click on the Compatibility View button .
The first step on the road to recovery is admitting that you have a problem .
Maybe Internet Explorer 8 is a born again standards compliant browser if it needs a special button to render sites designed for IE6 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's so great about Internet Explorer 8?
REASON 5 - See any site easily.
View sites with ease, even if they were designed for an older browser, with one click on the Compatibility View button.
The first step on the road to recovery is admitting that you have a problem.
Maybe Internet Explorer 8 is a born again standards compliant browser if it needs a special button to render sites designed for IE6.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387885</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28390783</id>
	<title>MS Bob Hope and IE8 tighten their ... grip</title>
	<author>David Gerard</author>
	<datestamp>1245429840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <b>BIG BONE LICK, Kentucky,</b> Wednesday &mdash; Microsoft today heeded the lessons of technological history, taking the popular "preview porn videos in the search engine" feature and turning its Bob Hope "decision engine" into a <a href="http://notnews.today.com/2009/06/17/microsoft-bob-hope-and-ie8-tighten-their-grip/" title="today.com">porn finder</a> [today.com] at the address explicit.bobhope.microsoft.com, and a new IE8 "Get the F*cked" campaign.

</p><p>"It worked for VHS over Beta, porn sites were leading innovators in online payments. It's a natural synergy," said Steve Ballmer, looking somewhat sweaty and flushed.

</p><p>Porn sites are some of the keenest users of Microsoft technologies, using the undocumented interfaces in Internet Explorer to install helpful toolbars and bulk email tools on users' systems. "It's all about tools. Our tools have amazed people for decades. Microsoft are famous for the biggest and best tools ever. Developers! Developers! Developers! DEVELOPEEERS!"

</p><p>Internet Explorer 8 is also part of the promotion. After a competition that advertises IE8's superior standards compliance with a site that deliberately breaks all other browsers, a programme to donate eight free meals for the poor for every IE8 download (with the cost of the meals being 10\% of the spend on promoting them) and a string of free porn sites requiring a Silverlight download to watch the smut, IE8 Service Pack 1 will include a "boot straight into porn" mode. "We found that was what users really wanted in an operating system. I mean, browser." It will include the Storm, Conficker and FBI botnets as standard. "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em." The system will also set up automatic deductions from your bank account and credit card.

</p><p>Mr Ballmer promised that Microsoft will, as always, deliver. "Unlike porn sites, we don't just tease &mdash; we really will fuck you. Now bend over."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BIG BONE LICK , Kentucky , Wednesday    Microsoft today heeded the lessons of technological history , taking the popular " preview porn videos in the search engine " feature and turning its Bob Hope " decision engine " into a porn finder [ today.com ] at the address explicit.bobhope.microsoft.com , and a new IE8 " Get the F * cked " campaign .
" It worked for VHS over Beta , porn sites were leading innovators in online payments .
It 's a natural synergy , " said Steve Ballmer , looking somewhat sweaty and flushed .
Porn sites are some of the keenest users of Microsoft technologies , using the undocumented interfaces in Internet Explorer to install helpful toolbars and bulk email tools on users ' systems .
" It 's all about tools .
Our tools have amazed people for decades .
Microsoft are famous for the biggest and best tools ever .
Developers ! Developers !
Developers ! DEVELOPEEERS !
" Internet Explorer 8 is also part of the promotion .
After a competition that advertises IE8 's superior standards compliance with a site that deliberately breaks all other browsers , a programme to donate eight free meals for the poor for every IE8 download ( with the cost of the meals being 10 \ % of the spend on promoting them ) and a string of free porn sites requiring a Silverlight download to watch the smut , IE8 Service Pack 1 will include a " boot straight into porn " mode .
" We found that was what users really wanted in an operating system .
I mean , browser .
" It will include the Storm , Conficker and FBI botnets as standard .
" If you ca n't beat 'em , join 'em .
" The system will also set up automatic deductions from your bank account and credit card .
Mr Ballmer promised that Microsoft will , as always , deliver .
" Unlike porn sites , we do n't just tease    we really will fuck you .
Now bend over .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext> BIG BONE LICK, Kentucky, Wednesday — Microsoft today heeded the lessons of technological history, taking the popular "preview porn videos in the search engine" feature and turning its Bob Hope "decision engine" into a porn finder [today.com] at the address explicit.bobhope.microsoft.com, and a new IE8 "Get the F*cked" campaign.
"It worked for VHS over Beta, porn sites were leading innovators in online payments.
It's a natural synergy," said Steve Ballmer, looking somewhat sweaty and flushed.
Porn sites are some of the keenest users of Microsoft technologies, using the undocumented interfaces in Internet Explorer to install helpful toolbars and bulk email tools on users' systems.
"It's all about tools.
Our tools have amazed people for decades.
Microsoft are famous for the biggest and best tools ever.
Developers! Developers!
Developers! DEVELOPEEERS!
"

Internet Explorer 8 is also part of the promotion.
After a competition that advertises IE8's superior standards compliance with a site that deliberately breaks all other browsers, a programme to donate eight free meals for the poor for every IE8 download (with the cost of the meals being 10\% of the spend on promoting them) and a string of free porn sites requiring a Silverlight download to watch the smut, IE8 Service Pack 1 will include a "boot straight into porn" mode.
"We found that was what users really wanted in an operating system.
I mean, browser.
" It will include the Storm, Conficker and FBI botnets as standard.
"If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
" The system will also set up automatic deductions from your bank account and credit card.
Mr Ballmer promised that Microsoft will, as always, deliver.
"Unlike porn sites, we don't just tease — we really will fuck you.
Now bend over.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389057</id>
	<title>Quoting from "Man of La Mancha" --</title>
	<author>dominique\_cimafranca</author>
	<datestamp>1245422700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Facts are the enemy of the truth!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Facts are the enemy of the truth !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facts are the enemy of the truth!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28396615</id>
	<title>Re:Okay... pro microsoft.. hit me with customizati</title>
	<author>man\_of\_mr\_e</author>
	<datestamp>1245409980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>ignore ads from selected addresses</i></p><p>Hosts file.  Not great, but it works.</p><p><i>disable flash unless I tell it to play.</i></p><p>Not specifically flash, but you can set all activex to prompt you, including flash.</p><p><i>disable flash unless I tell it to play.</i></p><p>Set Javascript to "prompt"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ignore ads from selected addressesHosts file .
Not great , but it works.disable flash unless I tell it to play.Not specifically flash , but you can set all activex to prompt you , including flash.disable flash unless I tell it to play.Set Javascript to " prompt "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ignore ads from selected addressesHosts file.
Not great, but it works.disable flash unless I tell it to play.Not specifically flash, but you can set all activex to prompt you, including flash.disable flash unless I tell it to play.Set Javascript to "prompt"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389957</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389419</id>
	<title>Re:Lies and Lying Liars.</title>
	<author>ground.zero.612</author>
	<datestamp>1245424140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Citation needed. It's easy to call someone a liar and rant on and on about how much of a liar they are without rebutting any of the supposed lies. You've done the easy part and written a page long rant, now do the hard part and back up your hearsay with a point by point rebuttal. Otherwise feel free to keep wasting peoples time with anti- rhetoric.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Citation needed .
It 's easy to call someone a liar and rant on and on about how much of a liar they are without rebutting any of the supposed lies .
You 've done the easy part and written a page long rant , now do the hard part and back up your hearsay with a point by point rebuttal .
Otherwise feel free to keep wasting peoples time with anti- rhetoric .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Citation needed.
It's easy to call someone a liar and rant on and on about how much of a liar they are without rebutting any of the supposed lies.
You've done the easy part and written a page long rant, now do the hard part and back up your hearsay with a point by point rebuttal.
Otherwise feel free to keep wasting peoples time with anti- rhetoric.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389313</id>
	<title>Re:what a laugh</title>
	<author>Erikderzweite</author>
	<datestamp>1245423660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have to agree that they have a point -- IE8 has not one, but two standard compatibility modes: one that mimics IE6 and the other that tries to mimic at actual standard at least to some extend.</p><p>See? How much standard compatibility modes does Firefox have? One. Chrome? One. IE? Two! That's where it shines, that's why it is more standards compatible. Because, as we all know, two are better than one!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to agree that they have a point -- IE8 has not one , but two standard compatibility modes : one that mimics IE6 and the other that tries to mimic at actual standard at least to some extend.See ?
How much standard compatibility modes does Firefox have ?
One. Chrome ?
One. IE ?
Two ! That 's where it shines , that 's why it is more standards compatible .
Because , as we all know , two are better than one !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to agree that they have a point -- IE8 has not one, but two standard compatibility modes: one that mimics IE6 and the other that tries to mimic at actual standard at least to some extend.See?
How much standard compatibility modes does Firefox have?
One. Chrome?
One. IE?
Two! That's where it shines, that's why it is more standards compatible.
Because, as we all know, two are better than one!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387885</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389237</id>
	<title>Re:IE8 performance?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1245423300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I tried your site in Safari and it refused to start the animation because it claimed that Flash was not installed.  Flash is installed, but it's blocked by default and I have to click on a Flash thing to start it.  Because you hid the Flash movie somewhere, I was unable to click on it.  <p>
Now, this is the bit where I call you an idiot.  Every modern browser has support for auto-playing MP3s (unless you are on a stock Linux install in a jurisdiction where software patents are legal, but then you're as likely to install the VLC plugin as you are Flash).  It is trivial to do this without needing Flash, and without the dependency on Flash it would have worked on platforms where Flash is not supported, such as the iPhone or any non-x86 *NIX system.  </p><p>
In short, it's less surprising that your site breaks in IE8 than it is that it works anywhere else.  You do some very wrong things in the CSS (e.g. declaring a style for BODY in XHTML, which is case sensitive and only provides a body tag; a browser that actually followed the spec and didn't implement work-arounds for bad sites would not use any of your CSS).  The way you are handling the animation is horrible.  It reminds me of the Web circa 1999.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried your site in Safari and it refused to start the animation because it claimed that Flash was not installed .
Flash is installed , but it 's blocked by default and I have to click on a Flash thing to start it .
Because you hid the Flash movie somewhere , I was unable to click on it .
Now , this is the bit where I call you an idiot .
Every modern browser has support for auto-playing MP3s ( unless you are on a stock Linux install in a jurisdiction where software patents are legal , but then you 're as likely to install the VLC plugin as you are Flash ) .
It is trivial to do this without needing Flash , and without the dependency on Flash it would have worked on platforms where Flash is not supported , such as the iPhone or any non-x86 * NIX system .
In short , it 's less surprising that your site breaks in IE8 than it is that it works anywhere else .
You do some very wrong things in the CSS ( e.g .
declaring a style for BODY in XHTML , which is case sensitive and only provides a body tag ; a browser that actually followed the spec and did n't implement work-arounds for bad sites would not use any of your CSS ) .
The way you are handling the animation is horrible .
It reminds me of the Web circa 1999 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried your site in Safari and it refused to start the animation because it claimed that Flash was not installed.
Flash is installed, but it's blocked by default and I have to click on a Flash thing to start it.
Because you hid the Flash movie somewhere, I was unable to click on it.
Now, this is the bit where I call you an idiot.
Every modern browser has support for auto-playing MP3s (unless you are on a stock Linux install in a jurisdiction where software patents are legal, but then you're as likely to install the VLC plugin as you are Flash).
It is trivial to do this without needing Flash, and without the dependency on Flash it would have worked on platforms where Flash is not supported, such as the iPhone or any non-x86 *NIX system.
In short, it's less surprising that your site breaks in IE8 than it is that it works anywhere else.
You do some very wrong things in the CSS (e.g.
declaring a style for BODY in XHTML, which is case sensitive and only provides a body tag; a browser that actually followed the spec and didn't implement work-arounds for bad sites would not use any of your CSS).
The way you are handling the animation is horrible.
It reminds me of the Web circa 1999.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28390299</id>
	<title>um.. yea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245427680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like how they conveniently leave out Apple's Safari, the only web browser to pass Acid3 on the PC and IPHONE</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like how they conveniently leave out Apple 's Safari , the only web browser to pass Acid3 on the PC and IPHONE</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like how they conveniently leave out Apple's Safari, the only web browser to pass Acid3 on the PC and IPHONE</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388427</id>
	<title>Re:Two words: Active Directory</title>
	<author>smoker2</author>
	<datestamp>1245419880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why should 3rd parties have to provide tools to make their product work with a competitors product ? Besides which you can easily have a local repo for your customised Firefox and set them to all get their updates from that.. ( about:config app.update.* )</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should 3rd parties have to provide tools to make their product work with a competitors product ?
Besides which you can easily have a local repo for your customised Firefox and set them to all get their updates from that.. ( about : config app.update .
* )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should 3rd parties have to provide tools to make their product work with a competitors product ?
Besides which you can easily have a local repo for your customised Firefox and set them to all get their updates from that.. ( about:config app.update.
* )</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389067</id>
	<title>Re:Two words: Active Directory</title>
	<author>parlancex</author>
	<datestamp>1245422700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Software settings are managed and enforced in Windows domains through a tool called Group Policy. Group Policy modules are nothing more than a collection of registry key settings tied into the Group Policy editor through a relatively simple script that exposes those settings in a more straightforward way. Not only does Group Policy allow you to specify target registry information and data directly, but it also allows you to deploy file system changes en masse to targeted files (like specfiying that an included file should be copied over \%appdata\%\mozilla\firefox\config.ini). Group Policy comes with a dandy IE module out of the box, but there's no reason any program can't be managed easily in an Windows enterprise environment if you took a few seconds to either find the I'm sure already existing GP module or created it yourself.<br> <br>Furthermore, there are many tools available to convert standard executable installation into an MSI package and Firefox would be very far from alone in any enterprise in requiring this small nuisance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Software settings are managed and enforced in Windows domains through a tool called Group Policy .
Group Policy modules are nothing more than a collection of registry key settings tied into the Group Policy editor through a relatively simple script that exposes those settings in a more straightforward way .
Not only does Group Policy allow you to specify target registry information and data directly , but it also allows you to deploy file system changes en masse to targeted files ( like specfiying that an included file should be copied over \ % appdata \ % \ mozilla \ firefox \ config.ini ) .
Group Policy comes with a dandy IE module out of the box , but there 's no reason any program ca n't be managed easily in an Windows enterprise environment if you took a few seconds to either find the I 'm sure already existing GP module or created it yourself .
Furthermore , there are many tools available to convert standard executable installation into an MSI package and Firefox would be very far from alone in any enterprise in requiring this small nuisance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Software settings are managed and enforced in Windows domains through a tool called Group Policy.
Group Policy modules are nothing more than a collection of registry key settings tied into the Group Policy editor through a relatively simple script that exposes those settings in a more straightforward way.
Not only does Group Policy allow you to specify target registry information and data directly, but it also allows you to deploy file system changes en masse to targeted files (like specfiying that an included file should be copied over \%appdata\%\mozilla\firefox\config.ini).
Group Policy comes with a dandy IE module out of the box, but there's no reason any program can't be managed easily in an Windows enterprise environment if you took a few seconds to either find the I'm sure already existing GP module or created it yourself.
Furthermore, there are many tools available to convert standard executable installation into an MSI package and Firefox would be very far from alone in any enterprise in requiring this small nuisance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388797</id>
	<title>Re:I got the facts ...</title>
	<author>derGoldstein</author>
	<datestamp>1245421560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>You've gotta love it that they keep pushing the word "Fact" into their FUD.<br> <br>

This is pathetic and infuriating at the same time, which is common with MS propaganda. As I went over the list (as well as the <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/windows/internet-explorer/get-the-facts/mythbusting.aspx" title="microsoft.com">mythbusting</a> [microsoft.com] bit) I laughed in a "black humor" sort of way -- it reads like a parody, kind of like something you'd read on TheOnion.<br> <br>

Isn't it nice that as long as you keep things <i>just ambiguous enough</i>, you can use the word "FACT" in an ad to state just about anything. At some point, if the law doesn't intervene, they <i>will</i> start positioning Google as the "Dark Corporation that spies on you", and Apple as a religious cult. I'm pretty sure they could do that now and they'd be un-sue-able.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've got ta love it that they keep pushing the word " Fact " into their FUD .
This is pathetic and infuriating at the same time , which is common with MS propaganda .
As I went over the list ( as well as the mythbusting [ microsoft.com ] bit ) I laughed in a " black humor " sort of way -- it reads like a parody , kind of like something you 'd read on TheOnion .
Is n't it nice that as long as you keep things just ambiguous enough , you can use the word " FACT " in an ad to state just about anything .
At some point , if the law does n't intervene , they will start positioning Google as the " Dark Corporation that spies on you " , and Apple as a religious cult .
I 'm pretty sure they could do that now and they 'd be un-sue-able .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've gotta love it that they keep pushing the word "Fact" into their FUD.
This is pathetic and infuriating at the same time, which is common with MS propaganda.
As I went over the list (as well as the mythbusting [microsoft.com] bit) I laughed in a "black humor" sort of way -- it reads like a parody, kind of like something you'd read on TheOnion.
Isn't it nice that as long as you keep things just ambiguous enough, you can use the word "FACT" in an ad to state just about anything.
At some point, if the law doesn't intervene, they will start positioning Google as the "Dark Corporation that spies on you", and Apple as a religious cult.
I'm pretty sure they could do that now and they'd be un-sue-able.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28394581</id>
	<title>Re:Two words: Active Directory</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1245444900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not "Firefox", that's a third-party re-packaging Firefox. It would be unfair to include that on the feature grid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not " Firefox " , that 's a third-party re-packaging Firefox .
It would be unfair to include that on the feature grid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not "Firefox", that's a third-party re-packaging Firefox.
It would be unfair to include that on the feature grid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388863</id>
	<title>Ahh, progress!</title>
	<author>vastabo</author>
	<datestamp>1245421920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First they ignore you,  (IE6, "What other browsers?")<br>then they laugh at you, (IE7, "LOL we got your tabs right here")<br>then they fight you,   &lt;-----(You are here)<br>then you win.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First they ignore you , ( IE6 , " What other browsers ?
" ) then they laugh at you , ( IE7 , " LOL we got your tabs right here " ) then they fight you , then you win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First they ignore you,  (IE6, "What other browsers?
")then they laugh at you, (IE7, "LOL we got your tabs right here")then they fight you,   then you win.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389429</id>
	<title>sniff sniff</title>
	<author>emaname</author>
	<datestamp>1245424200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Smells like desperation.

They can't innovate in any way except in distorting facts. Microsoft is VERY creative when it comes to lying.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Smells like desperation .
They ca n't innovate in any way except in distorting facts .
Microsoft is VERY creative when it comes to lying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Smells like desperation.
They can't innovate in any way except in distorting facts.
Microsoft is VERY creative when it comes to lying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389393</id>
	<title>Re:Just for kicks</title>
	<author>Erikderzweite</author>
	<datestamp>1245424020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only way they'll provide IE for for other OS' is if they want to recapture lost markets again.</p><p>As Mac example shows us, they'll drop support as soon as the market is theirs. In fact, they even stopped developing a Windows version at that point and the world was stuck with IE6 for many years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only way they 'll provide IE for for other OS ' is if they want to recapture lost markets again.As Mac example shows us , they 'll drop support as soon as the market is theirs .
In fact , they even stopped developing a Windows version at that point and the world was stuck with IE6 for many years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only way they'll provide IE for for other OS' is if they want to recapture lost markets again.As Mac example shows us, they'll drop support as soon as the market is theirs.
In fact, they even stopped developing a Windows version at that point and the world was stuck with IE6 for many years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387891</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387885</id>
	<title>what a laugh</title>
	<author>wjh31</author>
	<datestamp>1245416760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>web standards? no browser has given me more greif by completely changing the layout of a page which every other common browsr in every common OS displays perfectly fine. Not to mention all the 'made for IE' pages that look like shit in every other browser.<br> <br> IE is going to have to work damn hard to get rid of that reputation amoungst developers</htmltext>
<tokenext>web standards ?
no browser has given me more greif by completely changing the layout of a page which every other common browsr in every common OS displays perfectly fine .
Not to mention all the 'made for IE ' pages that look like shit in every other browser .
IE is going to have to work damn hard to get rid of that reputation amoungst developers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>web standards?
no browser has given me more greif by completely changing the layout of a page which every other common browsr in every common OS displays perfectly fine.
Not to mention all the 'made for IE' pages that look like shit in every other browser.
IE is going to have to work damn hard to get rid of that reputation amoungst developers</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389903</id>
	<title>Really this is news?</title>
	<author>fooslacker</author>
	<datestamp>1245426060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Leave it to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. to make a big deal out of a marketing campaign.  It might as well have read, "In other news, the notoriously evil and universally hated company, Microsoft, is now running commercials trying to convince people to buy their products".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Leave it to / .
to make a big deal out of a marketing campaign .
It might as well have read , " In other news , the notoriously evil and universally hated company , Microsoft , is now running commercials trying to convince people to buy their products " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Leave it to /.
to make a big deal out of a marketing campaign.
It might as well have read, "In other news, the notoriously evil and universally hated company, Microsoft, is now running commercials trying to convince people to buy their products".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388025</id>
	<title>Broken metrics.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245417540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One wouldn't need such malware protection if they didn't run windows.</p><p>Don't know what privacy victories you get to win when so many addons get behind the filter.</p><p>Compatibility, that is a metric they win solely on being able to define the playing field. activex and such shouldn't be a metric used. Further the non standards they forced on web developers for previous versions of IE also defined a playing field that no one else wanted to use.</p><p>Using copy that says "Thats just not nice" when speaking of enterprise tools is just showing how much the copy editors where gagging on the points they had to convey.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One would n't need such malware protection if they did n't run windows.Do n't know what privacy victories you get to win when so many addons get behind the filter.Compatibility , that is a metric they win solely on being able to define the playing field .
activex and such should n't be a metric used .
Further the non standards they forced on web developers for previous versions of IE also defined a playing field that no one else wanted to use.Using copy that says " Thats just not nice " when speaking of enterprise tools is just showing how much the copy editors where gagging on the points they had to convey .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One wouldn't need such malware protection if they didn't run windows.Don't know what privacy victories you get to win when so many addons get behind the filter.Compatibility, that is a metric they win solely on being able to define the playing field.
activex and such shouldn't be a metric used.
Further the non standards they forced on web developers for previous versions of IE also defined a playing field that no one else wanted to use.Using copy that says "Thats just not nice" when speaking of enterprise tools is just showing how much the copy editors where gagging on the points they had to convey.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388803</id>
	<title>Re:Two words: Active Directory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245421560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think "manageability" might have something to do with the IT department's ability to control settings on hundreds or thousands of computers in an Active Directory environment through Group Policy objects. Do Mozilla, Opera, and Google provide analogous tools to manage thousands of installations of Firefox, Opera, or Chrome?</p></div><p>Standard Firefox builds do not have any ability to be controlled with Active Directory - last time I looked Firefox didn't even have MSI packages available.</p><p>I use the <a href="http://www.frontmotion.com/FMFirefoxCE/index.htm" title="frontmotion.com" rel="nofollow">Frontmotion</a> [frontmotion.com] build of Firefox in my domain - it lets me control most Firefox settings (including proxy which is what I really needed) using Group Policy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think " manageability " might have something to do with the IT department 's ability to control settings on hundreds or thousands of computers in an Active Directory environment through Group Policy objects .
Do Mozilla , Opera , and Google provide analogous tools to manage thousands of installations of Firefox , Opera , or Chrome ? Standard Firefox builds do not have any ability to be controlled with Active Directory - last time I looked Firefox did n't even have MSI packages available.I use the Frontmotion [ frontmotion.com ] build of Firefox in my domain - it lets me control most Firefox settings ( including proxy which is what I really needed ) using Group Policy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think "manageability" might have something to do with the IT department's ability to control settings on hundreds or thousands of computers in an Active Directory environment through Group Policy objects.
Do Mozilla, Opera, and Google provide analogous tools to manage thousands of installations of Firefox, Opera, or Chrome?Standard Firefox builds do not have any ability to be controlled with Active Directory - last time I looked Firefox didn't even have MSI packages available.I use the Frontmotion [frontmotion.com] build of Firefox in my domain - it lets me control most Firefox settings (including proxy which is what I really needed) using Group Policy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389009</id>
	<title>Re:Can we come up with coherent rebuttals?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245422520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) IE8 does much worse at ACID3, so it is less standards compliant.<br>2) What IE8 does out of the box covers what a few Firefox extensions do, out of thousands available. Where are Tree Style Tabs? No squint? No Script? Its All text? (to pick a few I like)<br>3) Compatibility not that good because there are sure to be lots of sites around that still serve IE7 CSS workarounds to IE 8.<br>4) Performance does matter for very javascript heavy pages, which are now quite common<br>5) IE8 developer tools cannot match Firefox + Web developer Toolbar + Firebug + YSlow etc...<br>6) The others have malware protection. What about MS's generally bad track record.<br>7) tab isolation and recovery are not the be all and end all of reliability: how reliable is the rendering engine for example? It is better not to crash than to recover.<br>8) Firefox has some terrific ease of use features, as does Opera. The search in the FF location bar, and Opera quick dial come to mind, but there are a lot more.<br>9) IE is Windows only, which is also bad for security.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) IE8 does much worse at ACID3 , so it is less standards compliant.2 ) What IE8 does out of the box covers what a few Firefox extensions do , out of thousands available .
Where are Tree Style Tabs ?
No squint ?
No Script ?
Its All text ?
( to pick a few I like ) 3 ) Compatibility not that good because there are sure to be lots of sites around that still serve IE7 CSS workarounds to IE 8.4 ) Performance does matter for very javascript heavy pages , which are now quite common5 ) IE8 developer tools can not match Firefox + Web developer Toolbar + Firebug + YSlow etc...6 ) The others have malware protection .
What about MS 's generally bad track record.7 ) tab isolation and recovery are not the be all and end all of reliability : how reliable is the rendering engine for example ?
It is better not to crash than to recover.8 ) Firefox has some terrific ease of use features , as does Opera .
The search in the FF location bar , and Opera quick dial come to mind , but there are a lot more.9 ) IE is Windows only , which is also bad for security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) IE8 does much worse at ACID3, so it is less standards compliant.2) What IE8 does out of the box covers what a few Firefox extensions do, out of thousands available.
Where are Tree Style Tabs?
No squint?
No Script?
Its All text?
(to pick a few I like)3) Compatibility not that good because there are sure to be lots of sites around that still serve IE7 CSS workarounds to IE 8.4) Performance does matter for very javascript heavy pages, which are now quite common5) IE8 developer tools cannot match Firefox + Web developer Toolbar + Firebug + YSlow etc...6) The others have malware protection.
What about MS's generally bad track record.7) tab isolation and recovery are not the be all and end all of reliability: how reliable is the rendering engine for example?
It is better not to crash than to recover.8) Firefox has some terrific ease of use features, as does Opera.
The search in the FF location bar, and Opera quick dial come to mind, but there are a lot more.9) IE is Windows only, which is also bad for security.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28392381</id>
	<title>Re:MS. Here's a fact. This says it all...</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1245436740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The number one thing downloaded with IE8 is its successor IE7, meaning that they either automatically don't trust that IE8 will work correctly or that know they want to revert back to IE7 after trying it.</p></div><p>Of course, neither of those two things are applicable - on one hand, you cannot have IE7 an IE8 installed side-by-side; on the other, you do not need IE7 installer to revert to it from IE8.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The number one thing downloaded with IE8 is its successor IE7 , meaning that they either automatically do n't trust that IE8 will work correctly or that know they want to revert back to IE7 after trying it.Of course , neither of those two things are applicable - on one hand , you can not have IE7 an IE8 installed side-by-side ; on the other , you do not need IE7 installer to revert to it from IE8 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The number one thing downloaded with IE8 is its successor IE7, meaning that they either automatically don't trust that IE8 will work correctly or that know they want to revert back to IE7 after trying it.Of course, neither of those two things are applicable - on one hand, you cannot have IE7 an IE8 installed side-by-side; on the other, you do not need IE7 installer to revert to it from IE8.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28398031</id>
	<title>Re:Two words: Active Directory</title>
	<author>PixetaledPikachu</author>
	<datestamp>1245419880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can I set/change what proxy is used by 2000ish firefox install  at the same time?

My company deploys lots of web apps for our daily operation, and Firefox perform so much better than IE, but having to manage 2000ish Firefox install by hands seem too.. well..

I can use citrix's XenApp to serve Firefox centrally, but I think it's an overkill...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can I set/change what proxy is used by 2000ish firefox install at the same time ?
My company deploys lots of web apps for our daily operation , and Firefox perform so much better than IE , but having to manage 2000ish Firefox install by hands seem too.. well. . I can use citrix 's XenApp to serve Firefox centrally , but I think it 's an overkill.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can I set/change what proxy is used by 2000ish firefox install  at the same time?
My company deploys lots of web apps for our daily operation, and Firefox perform so much better than IE, but having to manage 2000ish Firefox install by hands seem too.. well..

I can use citrix's XenApp to serve Firefox centrally, but I think it's an overkill...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388129</id>
	<title>Use of quotes</title>
	<author>WaRrK</author>
	<datestamp>1245418200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft Launches New "Get the Facts" Campaign</p></div><p>'Microsoft Launches New Get the "Facts" Campaign'

There, fixed that for you....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft Launches New " Get the Facts " Campaign'Microsoft Launches New Get the " Facts " Campaign ' There , fixed that for you... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft Launches New "Get the Facts" Campaign'Microsoft Launches New Get the "Facts" Campaign'

There, fixed that for you....
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28390301</id>
	<title>Microsoft stats</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1245427680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are lies, damn lies, statistics, and Microsoft Facts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are lies , damn lies , statistics , and Microsoft Facts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are lies, damn lies, statistics, and Microsoft Facts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387891</id>
	<title>Just for kicks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245416760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I clicked the "Download Now" button, and I can't find my operating system in there.
<br>Compe up with a native Linux/BSD version Microsoft, and then we will talk.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I clicked the " Download Now " button , and I ca n't find my operating system in there .
Compe up with a native Linux/BSD version Microsoft , and then we will talk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I clicked the "Download Now" button, and I can't find my operating system in there.
Compe up with a native Linux/BSD version Microsoft, and then we will talk.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388031</id>
	<title>Two words: Active Directory</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1245417600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And what the hell does "Manageability" mean?  Rate at which the browser is able to be handled or controled?  What the hell?!</p></div><p>I think "manageability" might have something to do with the IT department's ability to control settings on hundreds or thousands of computers in an Active Directory environment through Group Policy objects. Do Mozilla, Opera, and Google provide analogous tools to manage thousands of installations of Firefox, Opera, or Chrome?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And what the hell does " Manageability " mean ?
Rate at which the browser is able to be handled or controled ?
What the hell ?
! I think " manageability " might have something to do with the IT department 's ability to control settings on hundreds or thousands of computers in an Active Directory environment through Group Policy objects .
Do Mozilla , Opera , and Google provide analogous tools to manage thousands of installations of Firefox , Opera , or Chrome ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what the hell does "Manageability" mean?
Rate at which the browser is able to be handled or controled?
What the hell?
!I think "manageability" might have something to do with the IT department's ability to control settings on hundreds or thousands of computers in an Active Directory environment through Group Policy objects.
Do Mozilla, Opera, and Google provide analogous tools to manage thousands of installations of Firefox, Opera, or Chrome?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28390857</id>
	<title>Re:IE8 performance?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1245430260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why use flash for your soundtrack when the EMBED tag will run an MP3 file without specifiying any proprietary tech?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why use flash for your soundtrack when the EMBED tag will run an MP3 file without specifiying any proprietary tech ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why use flash for your soundtrack when the EMBED tag will run an MP3 file without specifiying any proprietary tech?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388577</id>
	<title>Re:What do you know...</title>
	<author>Flea of Pain</author>
	<datestamp>1245420540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Easy, the first day they blocked one site. The next the blocked two.  Now at this rate in a million years they will eventually be blocking a million sites a day, therefore the are "on track" to block 1 million a day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Easy , the first day they blocked one site .
The next the blocked two .
Now at this rate in a million years they will eventually be blocking a million sites a day , therefore the are " on track " to block 1 million a day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Easy, the first day they blocked one site.
The next the blocked two.
Now at this rate in a million years they will eventually be blocking a million sites a day, therefore the are "on track" to block 1 million a day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388655</id>
	<title>Re:It's Too Late, I'm Done with IE</title>
	<author>bami</author>
	<datestamp>1245420900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I were in their unfortunate shoes, I'd re-brand and rename IE... give it a nice new coat of paint and call it something new and different... make it sound like its not just IE with a candy coating.  Hey - us IT folks would know better, but it might help them win back part of the non-technical market.</p><p>Most folks I know, IT or not, have a burning hatred of IE for all the s*** it put them through in its earlier revisions.  They will not come back to IE... but they may come back to a Microsoft browser just so long as it doesn't look or feel like IE on the exterior.  If Microsoft can't figure this little marketing ploy out then they are even more irrelevant these days than I thought them to be.</p></div><p>It's the other way around. IT people will recognise the change (and maybe for the better, if they get the act straightened out and provide something that adheres to standards), but 'the common people' will be confused. Just think about it, IE is the most brilliant name you can name any internet browser. "Internet Explorer", explore the internet. Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Safari, all great names, but the name itself has absolutely nothing to do with internet. Just replacing the familiar E icon with something else will confuse users, since most of them see that little blue icon as The Internet, not a program to view websites through. I've recieved loads of phonecalls or general questions about why their internet has changed all of a sudden with the release of IE7, and people who couldn't find their IE icon since it was a other shade of blue. And that was with just a little change in the layout of IE and an icon change! Imagine what would happen if they revamp the whole 'theme' of IE, or replace it with something entirely different.</p><p>As a webdeveloper, I'm already glad that IE8 does things somewhat along standards, instead of that hackjob implementation of "The Microsoft Standard&#194;&#169;", along with the fact that other browsers are gaining ground. Atleast now normal people with their default searchbar ridden browsers can look at my site and see something that looks somewhat allright, instead of all the crap you used to put up with, such as non-alpha pngs, things alignment out of whack, half-assed attempt at CSS implementation, etc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I were in their unfortunate shoes , I 'd re-brand and rename IE... give it a nice new coat of paint and call it something new and different... make it sound like its not just IE with a candy coating .
Hey - us IT folks would know better , but it might help them win back part of the non-technical market.Most folks I know , IT or not , have a burning hatred of IE for all the s * * * it put them through in its earlier revisions .
They will not come back to IE... but they may come back to a Microsoft browser just so long as it does n't look or feel like IE on the exterior .
If Microsoft ca n't figure this little marketing ploy out then they are even more irrelevant these days than I thought them to be.It 's the other way around .
IT people will recognise the change ( and maybe for the better , if they get the act straightened out and provide something that adheres to standards ) , but 'the common people ' will be confused .
Just think about it , IE is the most brilliant name you can name any internet browser .
" Internet Explorer " , explore the internet .
Firefox , Chrome , Opera , Safari , all great names , but the name itself has absolutely nothing to do with internet .
Just replacing the familiar E icon with something else will confuse users , since most of them see that little blue icon as The Internet , not a program to view websites through .
I 've recieved loads of phonecalls or general questions about why their internet has changed all of a sudden with the release of IE7 , and people who could n't find their IE icon since it was a other shade of blue .
And that was with just a little change in the layout of IE and an icon change !
Imagine what would happen if they revamp the whole 'theme ' of IE , or replace it with something entirely different.As a webdeveloper , I 'm already glad that IE8 does things somewhat along standards , instead of that hackjob implementation of " The Microsoft Standard     " , along with the fact that other browsers are gaining ground .
Atleast now normal people with their default searchbar ridden browsers can look at my site and see something that looks somewhat allright , instead of all the crap you used to put up with , such as non-alpha pngs , things alignment out of whack , half-assed attempt at CSS implementation , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I were in their unfortunate shoes, I'd re-brand and rename IE... give it a nice new coat of paint and call it something new and different... make it sound like its not just IE with a candy coating.
Hey - us IT folks would know better, but it might help them win back part of the non-technical market.Most folks I know, IT or not, have a burning hatred of IE for all the s*** it put them through in its earlier revisions.
They will not come back to IE... but they may come back to a Microsoft browser just so long as it doesn't look or feel like IE on the exterior.
If Microsoft can't figure this little marketing ploy out then they are even more irrelevant these days than I thought them to be.It's the other way around.
IT people will recognise the change (and maybe for the better, if they get the act straightened out and provide something that adheres to standards), but 'the common people' will be confused.
Just think about it, IE is the most brilliant name you can name any internet browser.
"Internet Explorer", explore the internet.
Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Safari, all great names, but the name itself has absolutely nothing to do with internet.
Just replacing the familiar E icon with something else will confuse users, since most of them see that little blue icon as The Internet, not a program to view websites through.
I've recieved loads of phonecalls or general questions about why their internet has changed all of a sudden with the release of IE7, and people who couldn't find their IE icon since it was a other shade of blue.
And that was with just a little change in the layout of IE and an icon change!
Imagine what would happen if they revamp the whole 'theme' of IE, or replace it with something entirely different.As a webdeveloper, I'm already glad that IE8 does things somewhat along standards, instead of that hackjob implementation of "The Microsoft StandardÂ©", along with the fact that other browsers are gaining ground.
Atleast now normal people with their default searchbar ridden browsers can look at my site and see something that looks somewhat allright, instead of all the crap you used to put up with, such as non-alpha pngs, things alignment out of whack, half-assed attempt at CSS implementation, etc.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388203</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388285</id>
	<title>Re:It's Too Late, I'm Done with IE</title>
	<author>plague3106</author>
	<datestamp>1245419220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And what the hell does "Manageability" mean? Rate at which the browser is able to be handled or controled? What the hell?! And their little quip for this one:</i></p><p>It means that IT cannot control any setting it wants on FF or Chrome.  With IE though, I can set IE settings, and the user won't be able to change them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And what the hell does " Manageability " mean ?
Rate at which the browser is able to be handled or controled ?
What the hell ? !
And their little quip for this one : It means that IT can not control any setting it wants on FF or Chrome .
With IE though , I can set IE settings , and the user wo n't be able to change them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what the hell does "Manageability" mean?
Rate at which the browser is able to be handled or controled?
What the hell?!
And their little quip for this one:It means that IT cannot control any setting it wants on FF or Chrome.
With IE though, I can set IE settings, and the user won't be able to change them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28392717</id>
	<title>Re:Lies and Lying Liars.</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1245438180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>tl;dr</htmltext>
<tokenext>tl ; dr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>tl;dr</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388971</id>
	<title>Re:Overrun by business managers...</title>
	<author>networkconsultant</author>
	<datestamp>1245422340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Contraray to popular belief Microsoft is a marketing firm, not a software company.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Contraray to popular belief Microsoft is a marketing firm , not a software company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Contraray to popular belief Microsoft is a marketing firm, not a software company.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28391037</id>
	<title>Re:Lies and Lying Liars.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245430920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are those who identify with unbiased information; the kind of writing written without appeal to ego or pleasure.  The engineer exists to find truths; they write them down in plain, unbiased fashion.  They are the opposite of salesmen, who exist to find common ground.</p><p>And then there are those who find such truth boring and respect only words used to mangle and destroy, reassure and pamper, pet and titillate, mutilate and distort, manipulate and drive hunger.</p><p>"Developer Tools:  Of course Internet Explorer 8 wins this one. There's no need to install tools separately, and it offers better features like JavaScript profiling."</p><p>Such people spend their time utterly unaware of the subtle errors in logic present in the text.  They do not remember things like Firefox And Chrome are open-source.</p><p>The truth is undenyable; it is denied every day by thousands with the same vehemency soldiers possess in combat.  It is not undenyable in the fact it is denied, it is undenyable in the fact it tends to destroy those utterly to fail to believe.</p><p>Learn to tell the difference before it is too late.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are those who identify with unbiased information ; the kind of writing written without appeal to ego or pleasure .
The engineer exists to find truths ; they write them down in plain , unbiased fashion .
They are the opposite of salesmen , who exist to find common ground.And then there are those who find such truth boring and respect only words used to mangle and destroy , reassure and pamper , pet and titillate , mutilate and distort , manipulate and drive hunger .
" Developer Tools : Of course Internet Explorer 8 wins this one .
There 's no need to install tools separately , and it offers better features like JavaScript profiling .
" Such people spend their time utterly unaware of the subtle errors in logic present in the text .
They do not remember things like Firefox And Chrome are open-source.The truth is undenyable ; it is denied every day by thousands with the same vehemency soldiers possess in combat .
It is not undenyable in the fact it is denied , it is undenyable in the fact it tends to destroy those utterly to fail to believe.Learn to tell the difference before it is too late .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are those who identify with unbiased information; the kind of writing written without appeal to ego or pleasure.
The engineer exists to find truths; they write them down in plain, unbiased fashion.
They are the opposite of salesmen, who exist to find common ground.And then there are those who find such truth boring and respect only words used to mangle and destroy, reassure and pamper, pet and titillate, mutilate and distort, manipulate and drive hunger.
"Developer Tools:  Of course Internet Explorer 8 wins this one.
There's no need to install tools separately, and it offers better features like JavaScript profiling.
"Such people spend their time utterly unaware of the subtle errors in logic present in the text.
They do not remember things like Firefox And Chrome are open-source.The truth is undenyable; it is denied every day by thousands with the same vehemency soldiers possess in combat.
It is not undenyable in the fact it is denied, it is undenyable in the fact it tends to destroy those utterly to fail to believe.Learn to tell the difference before it is too late.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28395129</id>
	<title>A Personal Attack</title>
	<author>creatorbri</author>
	<datestamp>1245403500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is quite simply one of the most appalling and disgusting abuses of corporate marketing muscle I have ever seen, and I am furious on a level I can scarcely begin to describe.

My livelihood depends on my ability to develop user-friendly, attractive, and functional web sites and applications. I owe a serious debt of gratitude to the Mozilla foundation and Joe Hewitt (creator of the Firebug extension) for the extensibility and development tools that make my job so much easier.

Internet Explorer, on the other hand, is the bane of my existence (as any well-versed developer will tell you). Microsoft's insufferably slow pace to implement anything remotely resembling standards, the fact that those "standards" seldom bear much MORE than a passing resemblance to the W3C version, and their obstinate rebellion against the whole standardization movement (despite the undeniable fact that, like it or not, we all use the SAME WEB), frequently turn minute work into hours of laborious suffering, which costs my employer a great deal of money (not to mention whittles away at my sanity). For the record, I have used every version of Internet Explorer since 1.0, and have a fair amount of experience sorting out the same kinds of problems in 8.0 as I did in 7.0, 6.0, 5.5, 5.0, and so on. I can tell you quite solidly that Internet Explorer 8 is but a narrow departure from prior offerings and offers nothing significant except an interpretation of standards that is still broken, but broken differently (which means I'll have to rebuild my apps yet again).

And the worst part is, the average user doesn't know what they're missing. They've never used Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Opera. They don't understand what a pleasant experience they're missing out on. Or if they've used these vastly superior products, when they come across the website that was coded ONLY for Internet Explorer, the site appears broken to them, and so they quickly abandon them. They rely on Microsoft, who owns their soul by virtue of the operating system they live their life through, to tell them what to believe.

And so for Microsoft to release this article, this blatantly bold-faced-lie-soaked Filth, is NOT merely a humorous anecdote to me. It is a blatant attack on my profession, on my sanity, and on all the people who will miss out on many other opportunities as a result. It is also an attempt to undermine all that I've worked for by convincing people, through a pretty-looking piece of bottom-of-the-scum-chain-dishonest propaganda, that the web they know can only be experienced properly by succumbing to the use of a product that is, in every possible way, drastically inferior.

For a company that has pioneered lows in the past few years, Microsoft has sunk to the deepest abyss imaginable -- they are using their dominant market position NOT just to sell people an inferior product, but to force-feed the people filthy lies and deception, and to crush and destroy any innovation that might otherwise be occurring in this market.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is quite simply one of the most appalling and disgusting abuses of corporate marketing muscle I have ever seen , and I am furious on a level I can scarcely begin to describe .
My livelihood depends on my ability to develop user-friendly , attractive , and functional web sites and applications .
I owe a serious debt of gratitude to the Mozilla foundation and Joe Hewitt ( creator of the Firebug extension ) for the extensibility and development tools that make my job so much easier .
Internet Explorer , on the other hand , is the bane of my existence ( as any well-versed developer will tell you ) .
Microsoft 's insufferably slow pace to implement anything remotely resembling standards , the fact that those " standards " seldom bear much MORE than a passing resemblance to the W3C version , and their obstinate rebellion against the whole standardization movement ( despite the undeniable fact that , like it or not , we all use the SAME WEB ) , frequently turn minute work into hours of laborious suffering , which costs my employer a great deal of money ( not to mention whittles away at my sanity ) .
For the record , I have used every version of Internet Explorer since 1.0 , and have a fair amount of experience sorting out the same kinds of problems in 8.0 as I did in 7.0 , 6.0 , 5.5 , 5.0 , and so on .
I can tell you quite solidly that Internet Explorer 8 is but a narrow departure from prior offerings and offers nothing significant except an interpretation of standards that is still broken , but broken differently ( which means I 'll have to rebuild my apps yet again ) .
And the worst part is , the average user does n't know what they 're missing .
They 've never used Firefox , Chrome , Safari , Opera .
They do n't understand what a pleasant experience they 're missing out on .
Or if they 've used these vastly superior products , when they come across the website that was coded ONLY for Internet Explorer , the site appears broken to them , and so they quickly abandon them .
They rely on Microsoft , who owns their soul by virtue of the operating system they live their life through , to tell them what to believe .
And so for Microsoft to release this article , this blatantly bold-faced-lie-soaked Filth , is NOT merely a humorous anecdote to me .
It is a blatant attack on my profession , on my sanity , and on all the people who will miss out on many other opportunities as a result .
It is also an attempt to undermine all that I 've worked for by convincing people , through a pretty-looking piece of bottom-of-the-scum-chain-dishonest propaganda , that the web they know can only be experienced properly by succumbing to the use of a product that is , in every possible way , drastically inferior .
For a company that has pioneered lows in the past few years , Microsoft has sunk to the deepest abyss imaginable -- they are using their dominant market position NOT just to sell people an inferior product , but to force-feed the people filthy lies and deception , and to crush and destroy any innovation that might otherwise be occurring in this market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is quite simply one of the most appalling and disgusting abuses of corporate marketing muscle I have ever seen, and I am furious on a level I can scarcely begin to describe.
My livelihood depends on my ability to develop user-friendly, attractive, and functional web sites and applications.
I owe a serious debt of gratitude to the Mozilla foundation and Joe Hewitt (creator of the Firebug extension) for the extensibility and development tools that make my job so much easier.
Internet Explorer, on the other hand, is the bane of my existence (as any well-versed developer will tell you).
Microsoft's insufferably slow pace to implement anything remotely resembling standards, the fact that those "standards" seldom bear much MORE than a passing resemblance to the W3C version, and their obstinate rebellion against the whole standardization movement (despite the undeniable fact that, like it or not, we all use the SAME WEB), frequently turn minute work into hours of laborious suffering, which costs my employer a great deal of money (not to mention whittles away at my sanity).
For the record, I have used every version of Internet Explorer since 1.0, and have a fair amount of experience sorting out the same kinds of problems in 8.0 as I did in 7.0, 6.0, 5.5, 5.0, and so on.
I can tell you quite solidly that Internet Explorer 8 is but a narrow departure from prior offerings and offers nothing significant except an interpretation of standards that is still broken, but broken differently (which means I'll have to rebuild my apps yet again).
And the worst part is, the average user doesn't know what they're missing.
They've never used Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Opera.
They don't understand what a pleasant experience they're missing out on.
Or if they've used these vastly superior products, when they come across the website that was coded ONLY for Internet Explorer, the site appears broken to them, and so they quickly abandon them.
They rely on Microsoft, who owns their soul by virtue of the operating system they live their life through, to tell them what to believe.
And so for Microsoft to release this article, this blatantly bold-faced-lie-soaked Filth, is NOT merely a humorous anecdote to me.
It is a blatant attack on my profession, on my sanity, and on all the people who will miss out on many other opportunities as a result.
It is also an attempt to undermine all that I've worked for by convincing people, through a pretty-looking piece of bottom-of-the-scum-chain-dishonest propaganda, that the web they know can only be experienced properly by succumbing to the use of a product that is, in every possible way, drastically inferior.
For a company that has pioneered lows in the past few years, Microsoft has sunk to the deepest abyss imaginable -- they are using their dominant market position NOT just to sell people an inferior product, but to force-feed the people filthy lies and deception, and to crush and destroy any innovation that might otherwise be occurring in this market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28400069</id>
	<title>Analogy</title>
	<author>qmaqdk</author>
	<datestamp>1245489060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find this oddly similar to countries that call themselves "Democratic". They rarely are.</p><p>I don't think Microsoft wants you to know the real facts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find this oddly similar to countries that call themselves " Democratic " .
They rarely are.I do n't think Microsoft wants you to know the real facts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find this oddly similar to countries that call themselves "Democratic".
They rarely are.I don't think Microsoft wants you to know the real facts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388149</id>
	<title>I don't get it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245418380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fact: Internet Exploiter is PART OF THE USER INTERFACE of every windows operating system since 95.</p><p>Fact: You can't uninstall IE without effecting your core operating system functionality. (Windows updates, programs that use IE's rendering engine for their own user interface - antivirus software, I'm looking at you!)</p><p>Fact: A VAST majority of Windows users have automatic updates enabled by default and will receive IE8 whether they like it or not (and they probably won't care anyway, as most users couldn't even tell you what version of IE they're running in the first place.)</p><p>Fact: Internet Exploiter has nearly always been, is currently and will always be the most used browser on Windows platforms. Yes, suck it up FF/O/Etc fans. We will gain market share, but when you're aftermarket and not OEM, people generally don't care. How many people change the stereo in their car? Sure. You can get an awesome stereo to replace the factory one, but if the factory one functions correctly and lets you listen to music, then why change?</p><p>I have worked in IT for over 10 years in the frontline. I'm tech support at a retail store, so my customers are the general public. We load FF on every PC that comes in and encourage our customers to use it. We load IE8 on every clean install of Windows we do because, and here's a really important point, that's the only safe time to upgrade IE without having the OS get screwed over. When IE8 first became a "Critical Windows update" and customers were installing it, we were inundated with fxxked computers that lost network connectivity, or crashed, or ran dog slow.</p><p>Hell, I recommend customers use OpenOfficeOrg instead of forking money out for Office.</p><p>And you can blabber on about developers. I do some web developing myself and I adhere to the W3C standards - NOT Microsoft standards. But the END USER doesn't care. If the page works fine, then whoopedy-doo! If they run FF/O/etc and the page doesn't work, where do they go? Do they send emails to the website? Do they complain to the W3C? Do they send mail to Firefox? No. They click the shiny (e) icon and try it there. Then what? Most users will continue their browsing experience in IE. Why switch back and forth between 2 browsers? End users see that as redundant.</p><p>This may be a little off-topic, but how about an "Only works with IE" blacklist website where IExclusive (hehe, I just came up with that LOL) websites are NAMED AND SHAMED. Then promote the shit out of the site. Maybe developers who cater only to Microsoft's needs would think twice about firing up Fro... Front.... Frontpa.... damnit, I can't say it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fact : Internet Exploiter is PART OF THE USER INTERFACE of every windows operating system since 95.Fact : You ca n't uninstall IE without effecting your core operating system functionality .
( Windows updates , programs that use IE 's rendering engine for their own user interface - antivirus software , I 'm looking at you !
) Fact : A VAST majority of Windows users have automatic updates enabled by default and will receive IE8 whether they like it or not ( and they probably wo n't care anyway , as most users could n't even tell you what version of IE they 're running in the first place .
) Fact : Internet Exploiter has nearly always been , is currently and will always be the most used browser on Windows platforms .
Yes , suck it up FF/O/Etc fans .
We will gain market share , but when you 're aftermarket and not OEM , people generally do n't care .
How many people change the stereo in their car ?
Sure. You can get an awesome stereo to replace the factory one , but if the factory one functions correctly and lets you listen to music , then why change ? I have worked in IT for over 10 years in the frontline .
I 'm tech support at a retail store , so my customers are the general public .
We load FF on every PC that comes in and encourage our customers to use it .
We load IE8 on every clean install of Windows we do because , and here 's a really important point , that 's the only safe time to upgrade IE without having the OS get screwed over .
When IE8 first became a " Critical Windows update " and customers were installing it , we were inundated with fxxked computers that lost network connectivity , or crashed , or ran dog slow.Hell , I recommend customers use OpenOfficeOrg instead of forking money out for Office.And you can blabber on about developers .
I do some web developing myself and I adhere to the W3C standards - NOT Microsoft standards .
But the END USER does n't care .
If the page works fine , then whoopedy-doo !
If they run FF/O/etc and the page does n't work , where do they go ?
Do they send emails to the website ?
Do they complain to the W3C ?
Do they send mail to Firefox ?
No. They click the shiny ( e ) icon and try it there .
Then what ?
Most users will continue their browsing experience in IE .
Why switch back and forth between 2 browsers ?
End users see that as redundant.This may be a little off-topic , but how about an " Only works with IE " blacklist website where IExclusive ( hehe , I just came up with that LOL ) websites are NAMED AND SHAMED .
Then promote the shit out of the site .
Maybe developers who cater only to Microsoft 's needs would think twice about firing up Fro... Front.... Frontpa.... damnit , I ca n't say it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fact: Internet Exploiter is PART OF THE USER INTERFACE of every windows operating system since 95.Fact: You can't uninstall IE without effecting your core operating system functionality.
(Windows updates, programs that use IE's rendering engine for their own user interface - antivirus software, I'm looking at you!
)Fact: A VAST majority of Windows users have automatic updates enabled by default and will receive IE8 whether they like it or not (and they probably won't care anyway, as most users couldn't even tell you what version of IE they're running in the first place.
)Fact: Internet Exploiter has nearly always been, is currently and will always be the most used browser on Windows platforms.
Yes, suck it up FF/O/Etc fans.
We will gain market share, but when you're aftermarket and not OEM, people generally don't care.
How many people change the stereo in their car?
Sure. You can get an awesome stereo to replace the factory one, but if the factory one functions correctly and lets you listen to music, then why change?I have worked in IT for over 10 years in the frontline.
I'm tech support at a retail store, so my customers are the general public.
We load FF on every PC that comes in and encourage our customers to use it.
We load IE8 on every clean install of Windows we do because, and here's a really important point, that's the only safe time to upgrade IE without having the OS get screwed over.
When IE8 first became a "Critical Windows update" and customers were installing it, we were inundated with fxxked computers that lost network connectivity, or crashed, or ran dog slow.Hell, I recommend customers use OpenOfficeOrg instead of forking money out for Office.And you can blabber on about developers.
I do some web developing myself and I adhere to the W3C standards - NOT Microsoft standards.
But the END USER doesn't care.
If the page works fine, then whoopedy-doo!
If they run FF/O/etc and the page doesn't work, where do they go?
Do they send emails to the website?
Do they complain to the W3C?
Do they send mail to Firefox?
No. They click the shiny (e) icon and try it there.
Then what?
Most users will continue their browsing experience in IE.
Why switch back and forth between 2 browsers?
End users see that as redundant.This may be a little off-topic, but how about an "Only works with IE" blacklist website where IExclusive (hehe, I just came up with that LOL) websites are NAMED AND SHAMED.
Then promote the shit out of the site.
Maybe developers who cater only to Microsoft's needs would think twice about firing up Fro... Front.... Frontpa.... damnit, I can't say it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388479</id>
	<title>Victory at hand</title>
	<author>dargaud</author>
	<datestamp>1245420120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just witnessed victory at hand when recently I saw someone not very computer oriented boot a random computer and say when looking at the desktop: "<i>damn, there's no Firefox, how do I get on the Intharnet?</i>" while IE's icon was right there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just witnessed victory at hand when recently I saw someone not very computer oriented boot a random computer and say when looking at the desktop : " damn , there 's no Firefox , how do I get on the Intharnet ?
" while IE 's icon was right there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just witnessed victory at hand when recently I saw someone not very computer oriented boot a random computer and say when looking at the desktop: "damn, there's no Firefox, how do I get on the Intharnet?
" while IE's icon was right there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388317</id>
	<title>Hmmm.</title>
	<author>apodyopsis</author>
	<datestamp>1245419340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My first thought was to laugh myself silly with a touch of indignant rage.</p><p>But actually I take this a bit more seriously.. There is a well known phenomenon (that I am sure somebody else knows the name of) where people tend to believe what they read and we are not the target audience of this advertising tripe. Many people who will read this (and do not know better) will believe it and follow it and pass it on. And that irritates mes.</p><p>In this fraternity we all sit back and mock the ridiculous claims and statement in their FUD and sales - but at the end of the day they are quietly winning the war with one ill educated person swayed towards their cause after another.</p><p>I sure have no answers, but I do not feel like mocking this kind of crap anymore.</p><p>At work I use FF - but I am forced to use IE for the corporate portal because apparently only IE can possibly work on the portal, so they paid somebody to edit the script to reject all "non-approved" browsers. That is the end result of ill informed high up decisions based on fluff like this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My first thought was to laugh myself silly with a touch of indignant rage.But actually I take this a bit more seriously.. There is a well known phenomenon ( that I am sure somebody else knows the name of ) where people tend to believe what they read and we are not the target audience of this advertising tripe .
Many people who will read this ( and do not know better ) will believe it and follow it and pass it on .
And that irritates mes.In this fraternity we all sit back and mock the ridiculous claims and statement in their FUD and sales - but at the end of the day they are quietly winning the war with one ill educated person swayed towards their cause after another.I sure have no answers , but I do not feel like mocking this kind of crap anymore.At work I use FF - but I am forced to use IE for the corporate portal because apparently only IE can possibly work on the portal , so they paid somebody to edit the script to reject all " non-approved " browsers .
That is the end result of ill informed high up decisions based on fluff like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My first thought was to laugh myself silly with a touch of indignant rage.But actually I take this a bit more seriously.. There is a well known phenomenon (that I am sure somebody else knows the name of) where people tend to believe what they read and we are not the target audience of this advertising tripe.
Many people who will read this (and do not know better) will believe it and follow it and pass it on.
And that irritates mes.In this fraternity we all sit back and mock the ridiculous claims and statement in their FUD and sales - but at the end of the day they are quietly winning the war with one ill educated person swayed towards their cause after another.I sure have no answers, but I do not feel like mocking this kind of crap anymore.At work I use FF - but I am forced to use IE for the corporate portal because apparently only IE can possibly work on the portal, so they paid somebody to edit the script to reject all "non-approved" browsers.
That is the end result of ill informed high up decisions based on fluff like this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388409</id>
	<title>Re:IE8 and sharepoint</title>
	<author>plague3106</author>
	<datestamp>1245419820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Conclusion:  You're an idiot.  All you had to do was hit the Compatibility View, and you'd be fine.  IE8 includes IE7s rendering engine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Conclusion : You 're an idiot .
All you had to do was hit the Compatibility View , and you 'd be fine .
IE8 includes IE7s rendering engine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Conclusion:  You're an idiot.
All you had to do was hit the Compatibility View, and you'd be fine.
IE8 includes IE7s rendering engine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389297</id>
	<title>Comparison</title>
	<author>Nerdposeur</author>
	<datestamp>1245423600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Sure, Firefox may win in sheer number of add-ons, but many of the customizations you'd want to download for Firefox are already a part of Internet Explorer 8 - right out of the box.</p></div></blockquote><p>"Sure, you may not want the customizations we included, and may want ones we didn't include, or may want to create your own. But we're Microsoft! So we don't care."</p><p>No, wait, wait. Let me try again.</p><p>"Sure, Firefox may win in sheer number of add-ons, and quality of add-ons, and ability to create custom collections of add-ons to share with your friends, and ability to create your own, and... wait, how is it that we win, again?"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , Firefox may win in sheer number of add-ons , but many of the customizations you 'd want to download for Firefox are already a part of Internet Explorer 8 - right out of the box .
" Sure , you may not want the customizations we included , and may want ones we did n't include , or may want to create your own .
But we 're Microsoft !
So we do n't care .
" No , wait , wait .
Let me try again .
" Sure , Firefox may win in sheer number of add-ons , and quality of add-ons , and ability to create custom collections of add-ons to share with your friends , and ability to create your own , and... wait , how is it that we win , again ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, Firefox may win in sheer number of add-ons, but many of the customizations you'd want to download for Firefox are already a part of Internet Explorer 8 - right out of the box.
"Sure, you may not want the customizations we included, and may want ones we didn't include, or may want to create your own.
But we're Microsoft!
So we don't care.
"No, wait, wait.
Let me try again.
"Sure, Firefox may win in sheer number of add-ons, and quality of add-ons, and ability to create custom collections of add-ons to share with your friends, and ability to create your own, and... wait, how is it that we win, again?
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389535</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm.</title>
	<author>VorpalRodent</author>
	<datestamp>1245424620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I use the IETab Firefox plugin - IE in the browser for those few corporate sites that absolutely require IE to display properly.  However, for the ones that don't require it, Firefox works awesome.<br> <br>In fact, when corporate decides that we need to have lots of fancy web-based applications that time out at ungodly intervals and have fields that are the wrong size?  The Greasemonkey plugin can also come to the rescue.<br> <br>Despite the fact that the corporate approved browser is IE, when my supervisor found out that I could increase my productivity and improve the functionality of sites with Firefox and a 5 line script, she had me send out installation instructions and a copy of the script to everyone in the department.<br> <br>Higher ups (or IT people that aren't technically higher excepting that they control the system images and the portals) may make ill-informed decisions, but having a manager that understands that the real goal is getting work done efficiently can work wonders.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I use the IETab Firefox plugin - IE in the browser for those few corporate sites that absolutely require IE to display properly .
However , for the ones that do n't require it , Firefox works awesome .
In fact , when corporate decides that we need to have lots of fancy web-based applications that time out at ungodly intervals and have fields that are the wrong size ?
The Greasemonkey plugin can also come to the rescue .
Despite the fact that the corporate approved browser is IE , when my supervisor found out that I could increase my productivity and improve the functionality of sites with Firefox and a 5 line script , she had me send out installation instructions and a copy of the script to everyone in the department .
Higher ups ( or IT people that are n't technically higher excepting that they control the system images and the portals ) may make ill-informed decisions , but having a manager that understands that the real goal is getting work done efficiently can work wonders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use the IETab Firefox plugin - IE in the browser for those few corporate sites that absolutely require IE to display properly.
However, for the ones that don't require it, Firefox works awesome.
In fact, when corporate decides that we need to have lots of fancy web-based applications that time out at ungodly intervals and have fields that are the wrong size?
The Greasemonkey plugin can also come to the rescue.
Despite the fact that the corporate approved browser is IE, when my supervisor found out that I could increase my productivity and improve the functionality of sites with Firefox and a 5 line script, she had me send out installation instructions and a copy of the script to everyone in the department.
Higher ups (or IT people that aren't technically higher excepting that they control the system images and the portals) may make ill-informed decisions, but having a manager that understands that the real goal is getting work done efficiently can work wonders.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388317</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389025</id>
	<title>Re:what a laugh</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1245422580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's a difference between making sure it works, and making sure it provides the best experience.  It's quite possible to write a standards-compliant site that works in IE, but looks better in other browsers.  The more sites that do this, the more often someone trying a different browser will visit a site they regularly go to and find their new browser makes it look nicer, and switch.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a difference between making sure it works , and making sure it provides the best experience .
It 's quite possible to write a standards-compliant site that works in IE , but looks better in other browsers .
The more sites that do this , the more often someone trying a different browser will visit a site they regularly go to and find their new browser makes it look nicer , and switch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a difference between making sure it works, and making sure it provides the best experience.
It's quite possible to write a standards-compliant site that works in IE, but looks better in other browsers.
The more sites that do this, the more often someone trying a different browser will visit a site they regularly go to and find their new browser makes it look nicer, and switch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388263</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28391509</id>
	<title>Re:Lies and Lying Liars.</title>
	<author>Phroggy</author>
	<datestamp>1245432960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>Web Standards - IE8: *  FF:  CR: * - It's a tie. Internet Explorer 8 passes more of the World Wide Web Consortium's CSS 2.1 test cases than any other browser, but Firefox 3 has more support for some evolving standards.</p></div></blockquote><p>A barefaced, shameless, utterly false lie. For you see, <i>there is no W3C CSS 2.1 test suite</i>. There is a <a href="http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/" title="w3.org"> <i>Pre-Alpha CSS 2.1 Test Suite</i> </a> [w3.org], but upon further investigation it can be seen that the IE team themselves <a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/08/19/more-tests-submitted-to-the-w3c-css-2-1-test-suite.aspx" title="msdn.com">have submitted at least 3221 of the 3708 test cases</a> [msdn.com], or at least that was the case last August 18th.</p><p>This is the most interesting lie I noticed.  For the record, if all 3221 of those test cases Microsoft submitted to the W3C are legitimate (and, if the W3C has incorporated them into the test suite, I would hope that they are), then it doesn't particularly bother me that Microsoft's contributions make up 87\% of the test suite.  What it tells me is, Microsoft has been <i>very</i> active at finding CSS bugs in IE (which, to be fair, is rather like shooting fish in a barrel).  It just happens that the CSS bugs that Microsoft has fixed recently aren't all the same ones that Mozilla and Apple and Opera have fixed.  That's fine.  Test suites are one of the ways we can quickly identify bugs that need fixing, and by contributing to the W3C's CSS test suite, Microsoft is actually <i>helping other browser vendors</i> to find their own bugs.  This is a Good Thing.</p><p>However, this is obviously not a complete test suite, and I'd bet IE doesn't "[pass] more... test cases than any other browser" by a particularly wide margin.  Presumably, IE passes all the tests that Microsoft has submitted, which is 87\% of them.  I'd guess that pre-release versions of other browsers probably pass even more, but Microsoft probably only compared shipping versions (which is fair, but doesn't tell the whole story).</p><p>Interesting that they single out Firefox 3 for having "more support for some evolving standards."  Are they referring to things that Firefox 3 supports but Chrome doesn't, or are they being disingenuous again?</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Web Standards - IE8 : * FF : CR : * - It 's a tie .
Internet Explorer 8 passes more of the World Wide Web Consortium 's CSS 2.1 test cases than any other browser , but Firefox 3 has more support for some evolving standards.A barefaced , shameless , utterly false lie .
For you see , there is no W3C CSS 2.1 test suite .
There is a Pre-Alpha CSS 2.1 Test Suite [ w3.org ] , but upon further investigation it can be seen that the IE team themselves have submitted at least 3221 of the 3708 test cases [ msdn.com ] , or at least that was the case last August 18th.This is the most interesting lie I noticed .
For the record , if all 3221 of those test cases Microsoft submitted to the W3C are legitimate ( and , if the W3C has incorporated them into the test suite , I would hope that they are ) , then it does n't particularly bother me that Microsoft 's contributions make up 87 \ % of the test suite .
What it tells me is , Microsoft has been very active at finding CSS bugs in IE ( which , to be fair , is rather like shooting fish in a barrel ) .
It just happens that the CSS bugs that Microsoft has fixed recently are n't all the same ones that Mozilla and Apple and Opera have fixed .
That 's fine .
Test suites are one of the ways we can quickly identify bugs that need fixing , and by contributing to the W3C 's CSS test suite , Microsoft is actually helping other browser vendors to find their own bugs .
This is a Good Thing.However , this is obviously not a complete test suite , and I 'd bet IE does n't " [ pass ] more... test cases than any other browser " by a particularly wide margin .
Presumably , IE passes all the tests that Microsoft has submitted , which is 87 \ % of them .
I 'd guess that pre-release versions of other browsers probably pass even more , but Microsoft probably only compared shipping versions ( which is fair , but does n't tell the whole story ) .Interesting that they single out Firefox 3 for having " more support for some evolving standards .
" Are they referring to things that Firefox 3 supports but Chrome does n't , or are they being disingenuous again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Web Standards - IE8: *  FF:  CR: * - It's a tie.
Internet Explorer 8 passes more of the World Wide Web Consortium's CSS 2.1 test cases than any other browser, but Firefox 3 has more support for some evolving standards.A barefaced, shameless, utterly false lie.
For you see, there is no W3C CSS 2.1 test suite.
There is a  Pre-Alpha CSS 2.1 Test Suite  [w3.org], but upon further investigation it can be seen that the IE team themselves have submitted at least 3221 of the 3708 test cases [msdn.com], or at least that was the case last August 18th.This is the most interesting lie I noticed.
For the record, if all 3221 of those test cases Microsoft submitted to the W3C are legitimate (and, if the W3C has incorporated them into the test suite, I would hope that they are), then it doesn't particularly bother me that Microsoft's contributions make up 87\% of the test suite.
What it tells me is, Microsoft has been very active at finding CSS bugs in IE (which, to be fair, is rather like shooting fish in a barrel).
It just happens that the CSS bugs that Microsoft has fixed recently aren't all the same ones that Mozilla and Apple and Opera have fixed.
That's fine.
Test suites are one of the ways we can quickly identify bugs that need fixing, and by contributing to the W3C's CSS test suite, Microsoft is actually helping other browser vendors to find their own bugs.
This is a Good Thing.However, this is obviously not a complete test suite, and I'd bet IE doesn't "[pass] more... test cases than any other browser" by a particularly wide margin.
Presumably, IE passes all the tests that Microsoft has submitted, which is 87\% of them.
I'd guess that pre-release versions of other browsers probably pass even more, but Microsoft probably only compared shipping versions (which is fair, but doesn't tell the whole story).Interesting that they single out Firefox 3 for having "more support for some evolving standards.
"  Are they referring to things that Firefox 3 supports but Chrome doesn't, or are they being disingenuous again?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389021</id>
	<title>Bizzaro?</title>
	<author>Canazza</author>
	<datestamp>1245422580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is this? Bizzaro World?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is this ?
Bizzaro World ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is this?
Bizzaro World?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389111</id>
	<title>Re:Lies and Lying Liars.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245422880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even the name is a lie. The only internet browser out there is Konqueror. The rest is just a World Wide Web browser, or web browser for short. So it should be WE; Web Explorer.</p><p>You can't get anything right, can they?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even the name is a lie .
The only internet browser out there is Konqueror .
The rest is just a World Wide Web browser , or web browser for short .
So it should be WE ; Web Explorer.You ca n't get anything right , can they ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even the name is a lie.
The only internet browser out there is Konqueror.
The rest is just a World Wide Web browser, or web browser for short.
So it should be WE; Web Explorer.You can't get anything right, can they?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28390715</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245429480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>At work I use FF - but I am forced to use IE for the corporate portal because apparently only IE can possibly work on the portal, so they paid somebody to edit the script to reject all "non-approved" browsers. </i></p><p>Don't look now but I think a MSFT employee is marking this down as "IE8 more compliant than FF"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At work I use FF - but I am forced to use IE for the corporate portal because apparently only IE can possibly work on the portal , so they paid somebody to edit the script to reject all " non-approved " browsers .
Do n't look now but I think a MSFT employee is marking this down as " IE8 more compliant than FF "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At work I use FF - but I am forced to use IE for the corporate portal because apparently only IE can possibly work on the portal, so they paid somebody to edit the script to reject all "non-approved" browsers.
Don't look now but I think a MSFT employee is marking this down as "IE8 more compliant than FF"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388317</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28390207</id>
	<title>Re:Lies and Lying Liars.</title>
	<author>rjhubs</author>
	<datestamp>1245427380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Informative?  This post is no different than the microsoft page.  Unsubstatiated claims. Just saying something is false does not make it so.  While those claims may not be true, this is not informative in anyway seeing as it provides no details as to why this is true.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Informative ?
This post is no different than the microsoft page .
Unsubstatiated claims .
Just saying something is false does not make it so .
While those claims may not be true , this is not informative in anyway seeing as it provides no details as to why this is true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Informative?
This post is no different than the microsoft page.
Unsubstatiated claims.
Just saying something is false does not make it so.
While those claims may not be true, this is not informative in anyway seeing as it provides no details as to why this is true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388671</id>
	<title>The "Get the Macs" Campaign?</title>
	<author>grolaw</author>
	<datestamp>1245420960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>M$ has finally admitted that the Mac Platform runs Windows best?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>M $ has finally admitted that the Mac Platform runs Windows best ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>M$ has finally admitted that the Mac Platform runs Windows best?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388381</id>
	<title>Can we come up with coherent rebuttals?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245419640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can we come up with some intelligent, thought-out responses against this? I'm picturing myself in the shoes of a non-anti-Microsoft zealot and I'm seeing nothing more than "Microsoft sucks because it does" here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we come up with some intelligent , thought-out responses against this ?
I 'm picturing myself in the shoes of a non-anti-Microsoft zealot and I 'm seeing nothing more than " Microsoft sucks because it does " here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we come up with some intelligent, thought-out responses against this?
I'm picturing myself in the shoes of a non-anti-Microsoft zealot and I'm seeing nothing more than "Microsoft sucks because it does" here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388131</id>
	<title>Even  if this were true...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245418200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd still have to run Windows to use it.  That's not an option (cost, usefulness problems, etc).</p><p>Port IE8 to Linux, or Mac OSX and I might consider using it.</p><p>Oh, right, IE8 is a Windows only application.  It's also closed source and highly tied to an expensive and ineffective bloaty piece of shit OS.  Clear winner my ass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd still have to run Windows to use it .
That 's not an option ( cost , usefulness problems , etc ) .Port IE8 to Linux , or Mac OSX and I might consider using it.Oh , right , IE8 is a Windows only application .
It 's also closed source and highly tied to an expensive and ineffective bloaty piece of shit OS .
Clear winner my ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd still have to run Windows to use it.
That's not an option (cost, usefulness problems, etc).Port IE8 to Linux, or Mac OSX and I might consider using it.Oh, right, IE8 is a Windows only application.
It's also closed source and highly tied to an expensive and ineffective bloaty piece of shit OS.
Clear winner my ass.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28395559</id>
	<title>Re:Lies and Lying Liars.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245405060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Flagrant abuse of "less" is becoming a pandemic. I must post this from my Oxford:</p><p>"In standard English, less should be used only with uncountable things ( : less money;: less time). With countable things, it is incorrect to use less: thus, : less people and : less words should be corrected to : fewer people and : fewer words."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Flagrant abuse of " less " is becoming a pandemic .
I must post this from my Oxford : " In standard English , less should be used only with uncountable things ( : less money ; : less time ) .
With countable things , it is incorrect to use less : thus , : less people and : less words should be corrected to : fewer people and : fewer words .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flagrant abuse of "less" is becoming a pandemic.
I must post this from my Oxford:"In standard English, less should be used only with uncountable things ( : less money;: less time).
With countable things, it is incorrect to use less: thus, : less people and : less words should be corrected to : fewer people and : fewer words.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389647</id>
	<title>Re:Just for kicks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245425100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless it is in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/ports/www/ieX/ and the source in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/ports/disfiles/ I wont touch it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless it is in /usr/ports/www/ieX/ and the source in /usr/ports/disfiles/ I wont touch it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless it is in /usr/ports/www/ieX/ and the source in /usr/ports/disfiles/ I wont touch it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387891</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28392045</id>
	<title>The cake is a lie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245435360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The cake is a lie...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The cake is a lie.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cake is a lie...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28394323</id>
	<title>Re:Lies and Lying Liars.</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1245444060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>    Security - IE8: * FF: CR: - Internet Explorer 8 takes the cake with better phishing and malware protection, as well as protection from emerging threats.</i></p><p><i>A lie.</i></p><p>Want to elaborate on that? Care to provide any evidence?</p><p>Like it or not, IE8 does include a lot of security features that other browsers do not, or do not to the same degree. Terms like "better phishing and malware protection" might be vague, but they're not necessarily inaccurate. And, don't forget that IE8 runs in a sandboxed security environment.</p><p><i>    Privacy - IE8: * FF: CR: - InPrivate Browsing and InPrivate Filtering help Internet Explorer 8 claim privacy victory.</i></p><p><i>A falsehood.</i></p><p>I'm using Firefox right now; please point to me where the private browsing feature is. I don't see one. Yes, I can clear personal data when I'm done browsing, I can even automatically clear personal data every time I close Firefox, but neither of those is the same thing as InPrivate Browsing.</p><p>(The only thing misleading here is that Microsoft left Safari off the feature grid-- and Safari does have this feature. But Firefox does not.)</p><p><i>A barefaced, shameless, utterly false lie. For you see, there is no W3C CSS 2.1 test suite. There is a  Pre-Alpha CSS 2.1 Test Suite, but upon further investigation it can be seen that the IE team themselves have submitted at least 3221 of the 3708 test cases, or at least that was the case last August 18th.</i></p><p>Are they valid test cases? If so, it's not a lie.</p><p>I think you might be fuzzy on the term "lie" here. If IE8 passes the test cases, that's the truth regardless of who wrote the test cases.</p><p>If, in fact, the IE8 term wrote the vast majority of test cases, and those test cases are valid (and you've provided no evidence that they aren't), then you're actually arguing that they're going FAR above and beyond other browsers in the realm of CSS 2.1 compatibility!</p><p><i>All three conclusions are false. These are lies.</i></p><p>By my count:<br>Security: may or may not be true; hard to judge without more historical data IMO<br>InPrivate Browsing: IE and Safari have this feature, Firefox does not. (I'm not sure about Chrome; I don't have it installed to check). Not a lie.<br>CSS 2.1 compatibility: Not a lie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Security - IE8 : * FF : CR : - Internet Explorer 8 takes the cake with better phishing and malware protection , as well as protection from emerging threats.A lie.Want to elaborate on that ?
Care to provide any evidence ? Like it or not , IE8 does include a lot of security features that other browsers do not , or do not to the same degree .
Terms like " better phishing and malware protection " might be vague , but they 're not necessarily inaccurate .
And , do n't forget that IE8 runs in a sandboxed security environment .
Privacy - IE8 : * FF : CR : - InPrivate Browsing and InPrivate Filtering help Internet Explorer 8 claim privacy victory.A falsehood.I 'm using Firefox right now ; please point to me where the private browsing feature is .
I do n't see one .
Yes , I can clear personal data when I 'm done browsing , I can even automatically clear personal data every time I close Firefox , but neither of those is the same thing as InPrivate Browsing .
( The only thing misleading here is that Microsoft left Safari off the feature grid-- and Safari does have this feature .
But Firefox does not .
) A barefaced , shameless , utterly false lie .
For you see , there is no W3C CSS 2.1 test suite .
There is a Pre-Alpha CSS 2.1 Test Suite , but upon further investigation it can be seen that the IE team themselves have submitted at least 3221 of the 3708 test cases , or at least that was the case last August 18th.Are they valid test cases ?
If so , it 's not a lie.I think you might be fuzzy on the term " lie " here .
If IE8 passes the test cases , that 's the truth regardless of who wrote the test cases.If , in fact , the IE8 term wrote the vast majority of test cases , and those test cases are valid ( and you 've provided no evidence that they are n't ) , then you 're actually arguing that they 're going FAR above and beyond other browsers in the realm of CSS 2.1 compatibility ! All three conclusions are false .
These are lies.By my count : Security : may or may not be true ; hard to judge without more historical data IMOInPrivate Browsing : IE and Safari have this feature , Firefox does not .
( I 'm not sure about Chrome ; I do n't have it installed to check ) .
Not a lie.CSS 2.1 compatibility : Not a lie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>    Security - IE8: * FF: CR: - Internet Explorer 8 takes the cake with better phishing and malware protection, as well as protection from emerging threats.A lie.Want to elaborate on that?
Care to provide any evidence?Like it or not, IE8 does include a lot of security features that other browsers do not, or do not to the same degree.
Terms like "better phishing and malware protection" might be vague, but they're not necessarily inaccurate.
And, don't forget that IE8 runs in a sandboxed security environment.
Privacy - IE8: * FF: CR: - InPrivate Browsing and InPrivate Filtering help Internet Explorer 8 claim privacy victory.A falsehood.I'm using Firefox right now; please point to me where the private browsing feature is.
I don't see one.
Yes, I can clear personal data when I'm done browsing, I can even automatically clear personal data every time I close Firefox, but neither of those is the same thing as InPrivate Browsing.
(The only thing misleading here is that Microsoft left Safari off the feature grid-- and Safari does have this feature.
But Firefox does not.
)A barefaced, shameless, utterly false lie.
For you see, there is no W3C CSS 2.1 test suite.
There is a  Pre-Alpha CSS 2.1 Test Suite, but upon further investigation it can be seen that the IE team themselves have submitted at least 3221 of the 3708 test cases, or at least that was the case last August 18th.Are they valid test cases?
If so, it's not a lie.I think you might be fuzzy on the term "lie" here.
If IE8 passes the test cases, that's the truth regardless of who wrote the test cases.If, in fact, the IE8 term wrote the vast majority of test cases, and those test cases are valid (and you've provided no evidence that they aren't), then you're actually arguing that they're going FAR above and beyond other browsers in the realm of CSS 2.1 compatibility!All three conclusions are false.
These are lies.By my count:Security: may or may not be true; hard to judge without more historical data IMOInPrivate Browsing: IE and Safari have this feature, Firefox does not.
(I'm not sure about Chrome; I don't have it installed to check).
Not a lie.CSS 2.1 compatibility: Not a lie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389221</id>
	<title>Re:I got the facts ...</title>
	<author>A12m0v</author>
	<datestamp>1245423240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't argue with <i>facts</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't argue with facts</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't argue with facts</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388359</id>
	<title>Lies, Damned Lies, and Advertising</title>
	<author>atfrase</author>
	<datestamp>1245419580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>As lame as this clearly is, I can't really fault Microsoft entirely; I think this is just a product of the deteriorating state of advertising and marketing in general.<br> <br>Time was, you only had to take an advertiser's claims with one grain of salt, but in the last few decades it seems like there's been a kind of hyper-inflation; now, you can't even read an advertisement critically to filter the hyperbole and extract some useful information, because there isn't any left.  After years of being unabashedly lied to by advertisers, we now have no choice but to assume that all advertising is pure, unadulterated lies.<br> <br>It's a little sad; it only took a few companies abusing the consumers' trust to ruin it for everyone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As lame as this clearly is , I ca n't really fault Microsoft entirely ; I think this is just a product of the deteriorating state of advertising and marketing in general .
Time was , you only had to take an advertiser 's claims with one grain of salt , but in the last few decades it seems like there 's been a kind of hyper-inflation ; now , you ca n't even read an advertisement critically to filter the hyperbole and extract some useful information , because there is n't any left .
After years of being unabashedly lied to by advertisers , we now have no choice but to assume that all advertising is pure , unadulterated lies .
It 's a little sad ; it only took a few companies abusing the consumers ' trust to ruin it for everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As lame as this clearly is, I can't really fault Microsoft entirely; I think this is just a product of the deteriorating state of advertising and marketing in general.
Time was, you only had to take an advertiser's claims with one grain of salt, but in the last few decades it seems like there's been a kind of hyper-inflation; now, you can't even read an advertisement critically to filter the hyperbole and extract some useful information, because there isn't any left.
After years of being unabashedly lied to by advertisers, we now have no choice but to assume that all advertising is pure, unadulterated lies.
It's a little sad; it only took a few companies abusing the consumers' trust to ruin it for everyone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387987</id>
	<title>Audience is Microsoft employees.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245417240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Looks like this campaign is not even aimed at the market. Microsoft announced a lay off. It appears they are not culling the employees by performance and competence. They seem to be lopping off whole programs and letting everyone go in those programs and all the lucky ones who happen to be in the rest will continue employment en masse.
This leads to low employee morale as the IE team people go, "my job depends not on my performannce but the kind of contacts my manager has with the higher ups and how well my team's output is doing in the marketplace. IE is steadily losing marketshare. Europe is going to unbundle IE and there will be a push to get IE less Windows in USA too. What is going to happen to my job? Should I bail out?".

So the IE Team VP gets the higher ups to show some signs that his reportees will not be left high and dry. Just a product of internal turf war, empire building and palace intrigue within that large bureaucracy. Nothing much to see here. Move along.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like this campaign is not even aimed at the market .
Microsoft announced a lay off .
It appears they are not culling the employees by performance and competence .
They seem to be lopping off whole programs and letting everyone go in those programs and all the lucky ones who happen to be in the rest will continue employment en masse .
This leads to low employee morale as the IE team people go , " my job depends not on my performannce but the kind of contacts my manager has with the higher ups and how well my team 's output is doing in the marketplace .
IE is steadily losing marketshare .
Europe is going to unbundle IE and there will be a push to get IE less Windows in USA too .
What is going to happen to my job ?
Should I bail out ? " .
So the IE Team VP gets the higher ups to show some signs that his reportees will not be left high and dry .
Just a product of internal turf war , empire building and palace intrigue within that large bureaucracy .
Nothing much to see here .
Move along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like this campaign is not even aimed at the market.
Microsoft announced a lay off.
It appears they are not culling the employees by performance and competence.
They seem to be lopping off whole programs and letting everyone go in those programs and all the lucky ones who happen to be in the rest will continue employment en masse.
This leads to low employee morale as the IE team people go, "my job depends not on my performannce but the kind of contacts my manager has with the higher ups and how well my team's output is doing in the marketplace.
IE is steadily losing marketshare.
Europe is going to unbundle IE and there will be a push to get IE less Windows in USA too.
What is going to happen to my job?
Should I bail out?".
So the IE Team VP gets the higher ups to show some signs that his reportees will not be left high and dry.
Just a product of internal turf war, empire building and palace intrigue within that large bureaucracy.
Nothing much to see here.
Move along.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28391129</id>
	<title>Re:Lies and Lying Liars.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245431400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Citation needed.</p></div><p>Not always.  If you tell me the sky is hot pink with plaid splotches, I can dismiss your claims without having to prove you wrong.  This is almost that bad.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Citation needed.Not always .
If you tell me the sky is hot pink with plaid splotches , I can dismiss your claims without having to prove you wrong .
This is almost that bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Citation needed.Not always.
If you tell me the sky is hot pink with plaid splotches, I can dismiss your claims without having to prove you wrong.
This is almost that bad.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389109</id>
	<title>Re:The facts from Microsoft's point of view.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245422880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft is becoming infamous for these bogus get the "<b>facts</b>" campaigns
</p></div><p>For those few who might be unfamiliar with the GTF campaign from the Summer of '04 of the past, here is a contemporary <a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween11.html" title="catb.org" rel="nofollow">treatment</a> [catb.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft is becoming infamous for these bogus get the " facts " campaigns For those few who might be unfamiliar with the GTF campaign from the Summer of '04 of the past , here is a contemporary treatment [ catb.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft is becoming infamous for these bogus get the "facts" campaigns
For those few who might be unfamiliar with the GTF campaign from the Summer of '04 of the past, here is a contemporary treatment [catb.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28391523</id>
	<title>Re:Two words: Active Directory</title>
	<author>teraquendya</author>
	<datestamp>1245433020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Firefox is rolling out the "build your own browser", sometime after 3.5 comes out. Its supposed to be aimed at providing just this kind of stuff.

<a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/06/09/0052232/Mozilla-To-Launch-Build-Your-Own-Browser" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/06/09/0052232/Mozilla-To-Launch-Build-Your-Own-Browser</a> [slashdot.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox is rolling out the " build your own browser " , sometime after 3.5 comes out .
Its supposed to be aimed at providing just this kind of stuff .
http : //tech.slashdot.org/story/09/06/09/0052232/Mozilla-To-Launch-Build-Your-Own-Browser [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox is rolling out the "build your own browser", sometime after 3.5 comes out.
Its supposed to be aimed at providing just this kind of stuff.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/06/09/0052232/Mozilla-To-Launch-Build-Your-Own-Browser [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388447</id>
	<title>Re:What do you know...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245419940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"and projections show that" is not the same as "therefore"</htmltext>
<tokenext>" and projections show that " is not the same as " therefore "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"and projections show that" is not the same as "therefore"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387839</id>
	<title>I got the facts ...</title>
	<author>Shome</author>
	<datestamp>1245416520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>now give me the story!</htmltext>
<tokenext>now give me the story !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>now give me the story!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28392077</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245435480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NMCI requires IE6, luckily installing FF makes no registry changes so I just did that + ieTab = profit. It just takes so long for anything in a gov't system to get the word on Change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NMCI requires IE6 , luckily installing FF makes no registry changes so I just did that + ieTab = profit .
It just takes so long for anything in a gov't system to get the word on Change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NMCI requires IE6, luckily installing FF makes no registry changes so I just did that + ieTab = profit.
It just takes so long for anything in a gov't system to get the word on Change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388317</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388021</id>
	<title>IE8 performance?</title>
	<author>El\_Muerte\_TDS</author>
	<datestamp>1245417480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, so this may be a single case. But I once made an interesting animation using nothing but html, css and javascript (flash to play back an mp3). It worked perfectly on all browsers (firefox, chrome, opera, safari, msie 6 and msie 7). But it quite broken in MSIE8, the performance is absolutely terrible on my laptop (which is the only machine I installed IE8 on) which wasn't the case before. The animation contains movement of animating gifs, in IE8 they don't animate properly.</p><p>The site in question: <a href="http://www.idleballad.com/" title="idleballad.com">http://www.idleballad.com/</a> [idleballad.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , so this may be a single case .
But I once made an interesting animation using nothing but html , css and javascript ( flash to play back an mp3 ) .
It worked perfectly on all browsers ( firefox , chrome , opera , safari , msie 6 and msie 7 ) .
But it quite broken in MSIE8 , the performance is absolutely terrible on my laptop ( which is the only machine I installed IE8 on ) which was n't the case before .
The animation contains movement of animating gifs , in IE8 they do n't animate properly.The site in question : http : //www.idleballad.com/ [ idleballad.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, so this may be a single case.
But I once made an interesting animation using nothing but html, css and javascript (flash to play back an mp3).
It worked perfectly on all browsers (firefox, chrome, opera, safari, msie 6 and msie 7).
But it quite broken in MSIE8, the performance is absolutely terrible on my laptop (which is the only machine I installed IE8 on) which wasn't the case before.
The animation contains movement of animating gifs, in IE8 they don't animate properly.The site in question: http://www.idleballad.com/ [idleballad.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28390605</id>
	<title>Re:Two words: Active Directory - an example</title>
	<author>ei4anb</author>
	<datestamp>1245429000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am trying to deploy a new PKI root certificate to around 100,000 desktops. For IE I deployed it via Active Directory. For the Firefox, Thunderbird and Unix desktops I had to write a complex package using the Mozilla 'certutil' tool. The result was dozens of helpdesk calls due to corrupt 'cert8.db'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am trying to deploy a new PKI root certificate to around 100,000 desktops .
For IE I deployed it via Active Directory .
For the Firefox , Thunderbird and Unix desktops I had to write a complex package using the Mozilla 'certutil ' tool .
The result was dozens of helpdesk calls due to corrupt 'cert8.db' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am trying to deploy a new PKI root certificate to around 100,000 desktops.
For IE I deployed it via Active Directory.
For the Firefox, Thunderbird and Unix desktops I had to write a complex package using the Mozilla 'certutil' tool.
The result was dozens of helpdesk calls due to corrupt 'cert8.db'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388045</id>
	<title>Translation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245417660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Sure, Firefox may win in sheer number of add-ons, but many of the customizations you'd want to download for Firefox are already a part of Internet Explorer 8 right out of the box."


Translation: Has a bunch of stuff you don't want or use.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Sure , Firefox may win in sheer number of add-ons , but many of the customizations you 'd want to download for Firefox are already a part of Internet Explorer 8 right out of the box .
" Translation : Has a bunch of stuff you do n't want or use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Sure, Firefox may win in sheer number of add-ons, but many of the customizations you'd want to download for Firefox are already a part of Internet Explorer 8 right out of the box.
"


Translation: Has a bunch of stuff you don't want or use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389005</id>
	<title>I don't get who the indended audience</title>
	<author>nobodyman</author>
	<datestamp>1245422520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems that two are two types of consumer who will see this add</p><ul> <li>People who have experience with firefox/chrome/opera and know that the IE8 claims are bullshit</li><li>People like my mother-in-law who who've "never heard of a firefox" woke up one day to find IE8 auto-installed on their computer and were none the wiser</li></ul><p>Either way it seems pointless to have this sort of marketing campaign.  In fact, it only serves to infuriate the people who know better when Microsoft should be doing their best to placate them after over a decade of flouting web standards.</p><p>That said, the <a href="http://www.browserforthebetter.com/psa-htm.html" title="browserforthebetter.com">Dean Cain ads</a> [browserforthebetter.com] are pretty funny.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems that two are two types of consumer who will see this add People who have experience with firefox/chrome/opera and know that the IE8 claims are bullshitPeople like my mother-in-law who who 've " never heard of a firefox " woke up one day to find IE8 auto-installed on their computer and were none the wiserEither way it seems pointless to have this sort of marketing campaign .
In fact , it only serves to infuriate the people who know better when Microsoft should be doing their best to placate them after over a decade of flouting web standards.That said , the Dean Cain ads [ browserforthebetter.com ] are pretty funny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems that two are two types of consumer who will see this add People who have experience with firefox/chrome/opera and know that the IE8 claims are bullshitPeople like my mother-in-law who who've "never heard of a firefox" woke up one day to find IE8 auto-installed on their computer and were none the wiserEither way it seems pointless to have this sort of marketing campaign.
In fact, it only serves to infuriate the people who know better when Microsoft should be doing their best to placate them after over a decade of flouting web standards.That said, the Dean Cain ads [browserforthebetter.com] are pretty funny.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387925</id>
	<title>The facts from Microsoft's point of view.</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1245417000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
They're using the definition of fact that says: "fact : a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference "
</p><p>
The catch is, it's biased people at MS who "accept it as true"  on the "basis for [inherently flawwed] argument or inference"
</p><p>
Microsoft is becoming infamous for these bogus get the "<b>facts</b>" campaigns, which are really marketing attempts to use Microsoft's truth to distort common belief, replacing the facts with MS' contrived point of view.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're using the definition of fact that says : " fact : a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference " The catch is , it 's biased people at MS who " accept it as true " on the " basis for [ inherently flawwed ] argument or inference " Microsoft is becoming infamous for these bogus get the " facts " campaigns , which are really marketing attempts to use Microsoft 's truth to distort common belief , replacing the facts with MS ' contrived point of view .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
They're using the definition of fact that says: "fact : a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference "

The catch is, it's biased people at MS who "accept it as true"  on the "basis for [inherently flawwed] argument or inference"

Microsoft is becoming infamous for these bogus get the "facts" campaigns, which are really marketing attempts to use Microsoft's truth to distort common belief, replacing the facts with MS' contrived point of view.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28391303</id>
	<title>Re:Lies and Lying Liars.</title>
	<author>frogzilla</author>
	<datestamp>1245432060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"shamelessly and flagrantly lie"</p><p>But it's a business lie, not a life lie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" shamelessly and flagrantly lie " But it 's a business lie , not a life lie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"shamelessly and flagrantly lie"But it's a business lie, not a life lie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387911</id>
	<title>Overrun by business managers...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245416940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No doubt MS is overrun by business managers, which I am sure is most of their problems.  To a business person, the product is the after thought, but the marketing is the most important thing.  IE does not have problems because of poor marketing.  It has problems because of of countless security issues with the code itself that have in the past left machines very vulnerable to malicious attempts.  Any technology person can tell you this, but I bet this will not be presented as a "fact" on their marketing campaign...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No doubt MS is overrun by business managers , which I am sure is most of their problems .
To a business person , the product is the after thought , but the marketing is the most important thing .
IE does not have problems because of poor marketing .
It has problems because of of countless security issues with the code itself that have in the past left machines very vulnerable to malicious attempts .
Any technology person can tell you this , but I bet this will not be presented as a " fact " on their marketing campaign.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No doubt MS is overrun by business managers, which I am sure is most of their problems.
To a business person, the product is the after thought, but the marketing is the most important thing.
IE does not have problems because of poor marketing.
It has problems because of of countless security issues with the code itself that have in the past left machines very vulnerable to malicious attempts.
Any technology person can tell you this, but I bet this will not be presented as a "fact" on their marketing campaign...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388181</id>
	<title>A better campaign for IE8...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245418560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We'll hide your porn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 'll hide your porn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We'll hide your porn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389933</id>
	<title>Re:Just for kicks</title>
	<author>elashish14</author>
	<datestamp>1245426180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And why don't they open their source while they're at it too??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And why do n't they open their source while they 're at it too ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And why don't they open their source while they're at it too?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387891</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389957</id>
	<title>Okay... pro microsoft.. hit me with customization</title>
	<author>Maxo-Texas</author>
	<datestamp>1245426300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I occasionally have to use I.E. and I see no way to customize it to<br>a) ignore ads from selected addresses.<br>b) disable flash unless I tell it to play.<br>c) disable javascript unless I authorize it.<br>d) capture media playing through the browser<br>e) selectively zoom in/out text, images, text &amp; images  (speaking of which-- when are we going to be able to zoom in/out WINDOW text in windows.  I can change title bars, menus, etc, but not the one font i need to change most.)<br>f) massively collect all files of a similar type at a location.</p><p>---</p><p>Lack of these features is frustrating on the occasions where i have to use IE.<br>So how can i do this in IE 8?  I'm sure it will be forced on to my laptop before long since it is a vista box.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I occasionally have to use I.E .
and I see no way to customize it toa ) ignore ads from selected addresses.b ) disable flash unless I tell it to play.c ) disable javascript unless I authorize it.d ) capture media playing through the browsere ) selectively zoom in/out text , images , text &amp; images ( speaking of which-- when are we going to be able to zoom in/out WINDOW text in windows .
I can change title bars , menus , etc , but not the one font i need to change most .
) f ) massively collect all files of a similar type at a location.---Lack of these features is frustrating on the occasions where i have to use IE.So how can i do this in IE 8 ?
I 'm sure it will be forced on to my laptop before long since it is a vista box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I occasionally have to use I.E.
and I see no way to customize it toa) ignore ads from selected addresses.b) disable flash unless I tell it to play.c) disable javascript unless I authorize it.d) capture media playing through the browsere) selectively zoom in/out text, images, text &amp; images  (speaking of which-- when are we going to be able to zoom in/out WINDOW text in windows.
I can change title bars, menus, etc, but not the one font i need to change most.
)f) massively collect all files of a similar type at a location.---Lack of these features is frustrating on the occasions where i have to use IE.So how can i do this in IE 8?
I'm sure it will be forced on to my laptop before long since it is a vista box.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388527</id>
	<title>Re:Just for kicks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245420300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Put Internet Explorer on my Linux system- NEVER!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Put Internet Explorer on my Linux system- NEVER ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Put Internet Explorer on my Linux system- NEVER!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387891</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388051</id>
	<title>Re:What do you know...</title>
	<author>GreenTech11</author>
	<datestamp>1245417660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What do you know, it looks like Microsoft use Verizon maths as well<p><div class="quote"><p>Since the Beta 2 release last spring, SmartScreen filter has blocked over 8 million malware and phishing scams, and projections show that it's on target for over 1 million blocks per day.</p></div><p>It's blocked 8 million, over the course of a year, and is on target for 1 million blocks a day how?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you know , it looks like Microsoft use Verizon maths as wellSince the Beta 2 release last spring , SmartScreen filter has blocked over 8 million malware and phishing scams , and projections show that it 's on target for over 1 million blocks per day.It 's blocked 8 million , over the course of a year , and is on target for 1 million blocks a day how ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you know, it looks like Microsoft use Verizon maths as wellSince the Beta 2 release last spring, SmartScreen filter has blocked over 8 million malware and phishing scams, and projections show that it's on target for over 1 million blocks per day.It's blocked 8 million, over the course of a year, and is on target for 1 million blocks a day how?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28390809</id>
	<title>Re:I got the facts ...</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1245430020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm pretty sure they could do that now and they'd be un-sue-able.</p></div><p>There is no such thing as "unsueable".  You can sue anyone you want for anything you want.  Most things if you tried to sue for you would lose - you need a pretty decent case in line with the law to actually win - and there is quite a lot that would be tossed immediately because it is rediculous, but even then it must be thrown out by a judge who hears at least the beginning of your case.  You sued, but you lost at the very beginning.</p><p>If you meant the others could sue and Microsoft would win, you are probably right, but the further MS pushes it, the further a court case would drag out, and soon the rest of the industry will be in a position to drag a court case out.  That would still generally work in MS's favor, but they have fallen on hard times like everybody else and will not want to waste millions of dollars on something that is rather frivolous.  A few wording changes could actually make a legitimate case for IE8, it's a pretty solid browser with some nice features.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure they could do that now and they 'd be un-sue-able.There is no such thing as " unsueable " .
You can sue anyone you want for anything you want .
Most things if you tried to sue for you would lose - you need a pretty decent case in line with the law to actually win - and there is quite a lot that would be tossed immediately because it is rediculous , but even then it must be thrown out by a judge who hears at least the beginning of your case .
You sued , but you lost at the very beginning.If you meant the others could sue and Microsoft would win , you are probably right , but the further MS pushes it , the further a court case would drag out , and soon the rest of the industry will be in a position to drag a court case out .
That would still generally work in MS 's favor , but they have fallen on hard times like everybody else and will not want to waste millions of dollars on something that is rather frivolous .
A few wording changes could actually make a legitimate case for IE8 , it 's a pretty solid browser with some nice features .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure they could do that now and they'd be un-sue-able.There is no such thing as "unsueable".
You can sue anyone you want for anything you want.
Most things if you tried to sue for you would lose - you need a pretty decent case in line with the law to actually win - and there is quite a lot that would be tossed immediately because it is rediculous, but even then it must be thrown out by a judge who hears at least the beginning of your case.
You sued, but you lost at the very beginning.If you meant the others could sue and Microsoft would win, you are probably right, but the further MS pushes it, the further a court case would drag out, and soon the rest of the industry will be in a position to drag a court case out.
That would still generally work in MS's favor, but they have fallen on hard times like everybody else and will not want to waste millions of dollars on something that is rather frivolous.
A few wording changes could actually make a legitimate case for IE8, it's a pretty solid browser with some nice features.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388675</id>
	<title>Microshaft launches new Get the FUD campain.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245421020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microshaft launches new Get the FUD campain</p><p>There, fixed the headline for ya!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microshaft launches new Get the FUD campainThere , fixed the headline for ya !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microshaft launches new Get the FUD campainThere, fixed the headline for ya!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28400623</id>
	<title>Get the (Real) Facts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245497580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Standards support better than Gecko's and WebKit? That's funny. IE8 doesn't even legitimately pass Acid2. It uses hard-coded tricks that make it "pass" Acid2, but it causes sites that works perfectly with Firefox, Safari, Chrome and even Microsoft's own IE7 without any hacks break in IE8. Could it be that IE7 had better standards support than IE8 has now?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>And last time I checked, IE8 scored 4 out of 100 in the Acid3 test, and that rendered output looked nothing like how it should look in standard-aware browsers. Netscape 4 and Mosaic probably scored better.</p><p>Firefox lacks a Crash Recovery feature to restore tabs? Firefox could restore tabs after a crash before IE even HAD tabs. And cloning the whole multi-process architecture of Google Chrome and claiming that's a unique feature of IE8? Now that's even rude. IE was the first to have phishing protection? No sir, that's Firefox 2 again. IE8 is the most secure? Now that's really funny. Of course, ActiveX controls are such a useful and secure feature, and tying a browser to the OS and the shell is a very legitimate and secure thing to do.</p><p>I wish Google would sue them for that poo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Standards support better than Gecko 's and WebKit ?
That 's funny .
IE8 does n't even legitimately pass Acid2 .
It uses hard-coded tricks that make it " pass " Acid2 , but it causes sites that works perfectly with Firefox , Safari , Chrome and even Microsoft 's own IE7 without any hacks break in IE8 .
Could it be that IE7 had better standards support than IE8 has now ?
; ) And last time I checked , IE8 scored 4 out of 100 in the Acid3 test , and that rendered output looked nothing like how it should look in standard-aware browsers .
Netscape 4 and Mosaic probably scored better.Firefox lacks a Crash Recovery feature to restore tabs ?
Firefox could restore tabs after a crash before IE even HAD tabs .
And cloning the whole multi-process architecture of Google Chrome and claiming that 's a unique feature of IE8 ?
Now that 's even rude .
IE was the first to have phishing protection ?
No sir , that 's Firefox 2 again .
IE8 is the most secure ?
Now that 's really funny .
Of course , ActiveX controls are such a useful and secure feature , and tying a browser to the OS and the shell is a very legitimate and secure thing to do.I wish Google would sue them for that poo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Standards support better than Gecko's and WebKit?
That's funny.
IE8 doesn't even legitimately pass Acid2.
It uses hard-coded tricks that make it "pass" Acid2, but it causes sites that works perfectly with Firefox, Safari, Chrome and even Microsoft's own IE7 without any hacks break in IE8.
Could it be that IE7 had better standards support than IE8 has now?
;)And last time I checked, IE8 scored 4 out of 100 in the Acid3 test, and that rendered output looked nothing like how it should look in standard-aware browsers.
Netscape 4 and Mosaic probably scored better.Firefox lacks a Crash Recovery feature to restore tabs?
Firefox could restore tabs after a crash before IE even HAD tabs.
And cloning the whole multi-process architecture of Google Chrome and claiming that's a unique feature of IE8?
Now that's even rude.
IE was the first to have phishing protection?
No sir, that's Firefox 2 again.
IE8 is the most secure?
Now that's really funny.
Of course, ActiveX controls are such a useful and secure feature, and tying a browser to the OS and the shell is a very legitimate and secure thing to do.I wish Google would sue them for that poo.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389215</id>
	<title>Re:It's Too Late, I'm Done with IE</title>
	<author>ubersoldat2k7</author>
	<datestamp>1245423240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When will they learn? The way to dominate the market isn't to force your own sub-par standards on everyone else - it's to adopt early and adopt often. Be the most compatible and feature-complete and you will be a developer favorite for years to come.</p></div><p>I think that Microsoft Bing and IE guys must work on different countries. I mean, take a look at Bing, as for now is a pretty good search site that beats google (except for the name), works perfectly on Firefox and Opera (the ones I've tested) and haven't gone out with a FUD campaign. If you build something that's great, works, and is not a pain in the ass, then people will come. Ok, you need some marketing, but don't need this kind of guerrilla marketing that pretty much pisses people off.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When will they learn ?
The way to dominate the market is n't to force your own sub-par standards on everyone else - it 's to adopt early and adopt often .
Be the most compatible and feature-complete and you will be a developer favorite for years to come.I think that Microsoft Bing and IE guys must work on different countries .
I mean , take a look at Bing , as for now is a pretty good search site that beats google ( except for the name ) , works perfectly on Firefox and Opera ( the ones I 've tested ) and have n't gone out with a FUD campaign .
If you build something that 's great , works , and is not a pain in the ass , then people will come .
Ok , you need some marketing , but do n't need this kind of guerrilla marketing that pretty much pisses people off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When will they learn?
The way to dominate the market isn't to force your own sub-par standards on everyone else - it's to adopt early and adopt often.
Be the most compatible and feature-complete and you will be a developer favorite for years to come.I think that Microsoft Bing and IE guys must work on different countries.
I mean, take a look at Bing, as for now is a pretty good search site that beats google (except for the name), works perfectly on Firefox and Opera (the ones I've tested) and haven't gone out with a FUD campaign.
If you build something that's great, works, and is not a pain in the ass, then people will come.
Ok, you need some marketing, but don't need this kind of guerrilla marketing that pretty much pisses people off.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388203</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388313</id>
	<title>Web Standards????</title>
	<author>Goosgoonies</author>
	<datestamp>1245419340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Rule #1:

If you want to talk about how great your browser is, make sure the relevant pages <a href="http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http\%3A\%2F\%2Fwww.microsoft.com\%2Fwindows\%2Finternet-explorer\%2Fget-the-facts\%2Fbrowser-comparison.aspx&amp;charset=(detect+automatically)&amp;doctype=Inline&amp;group=0" title="w3.org" rel="nofollow">pass the validator</a> [w3.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rule # 1 : If you want to talk about how great your browser is , make sure the relevant pages pass the validator [ w3.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rule #1:

If you want to talk about how great your browser is, make sure the relevant pages pass the validator [w3.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28390117</id>
	<title>Break down the marketing</title>
	<author>JoelisHere</author>
	<datestamp>1245426960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here is my response to some of the claims:<p><div class="quote"><p>Ease of Use<br>
Features like Accelerators, Web Slices and Visual Search Suggestions make Internet Explorer 8 easiest to use.</p></div><p>IE 8 is the most clunky of the listed browsers, with overly large tabs, poorly laid out UI, and, non-intuitive customization of toolbars.  Why can't I just drag and drop 'commands?'</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Web Standards<br>
It's a tie. Internet Explorer 8 passes more of the World Wide Web Consortium's CSS 2.1 test cases than any other browser, but Firefox 3 has more support for some evolving standards.</p></div><p>Web Standards support is so much better than in IE 6 and 7, they finally have CSS 2.1 support, while nearly every other browser is adding CSS 3 features all the time.
IE 8 is better because they aren't using modern technology?  That's why IE 6 sucked for years, because it was so backwards.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Developer Tools<br>
Of course Internet Explorer 8 wins this one. There's no need to install tools separately, and it offers better features like JavaScript profiling.</p></div><p>I'm a developer.  IE 8's developer tools aren't even enough to debug why a standards complaint page isn't working in IE 8, let alone to use during active development.
"JavaScript profiling"  is either not really a feature, or not a useful one.  Again, as a developer I only mess with IE 8's  developer tools if I need to work around a problem that is being caused by IE 8.  As abysmal as developer tools are in IE 8 there is one browser with worse tools: IE 6.  (anyone remember the completely unhelpful javascript error message, "Object expected error on line 0?"</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Reliability<br>
Only Internet Explorer 8 has both tab isolation and crash recovery features; Firefox and Chrome have one or the other.</p></div><p>While the statement is true, it isn't about reliability.  It's about what happens when the browser does something bad.  If a browser were reliable it wouldn't need crash recovery.  As far as I know no browser offers a way to kill an offending tab.  I don't often see a tab 'crash' but will often see one lock up or hang.  (generally not the browsers fault, so much as bad javascript)  So while tab isolation is a step in the right direction it doesn't contribute much yet.  I have yet to have an instance of Firefox crash and not recover on relaunch.  IE 8 will sometimes recover ok, but often not.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Customizability<br>
Sure, Firefox may win in sheer number of add-ons, but many of the customizations you'd want to download for Firefox are already a part of Internet Explorer 8 - right out of the box.</p></div><p>How does IE 8 know which features I want?  Just because a product has more features installed (which cannot be easily removed), 'out of the box,' doesn't make it in any way customizable.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Compatibility<br>
Internet Explorer 8 is more compatible with more sites on the Internet than any other browser.</p></div><p>More compatible with more sites? I would like to see some evidence or proof of this claim.  As a developer, I write for modern web standards, and that means my web applications/sites work with Firefox, Safari, Chrome, and Opera, with no problems.  If need be, I write hacks to make things OK, in IE 6,7, and/or 8.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Performance<br>
Knowing the top speed of a car doesn't tell you how fast you can drive in rush hour. To actually see the difference in page loads between all three browsers, you need slow-motion video. This one's also a tie.</p> </div><p>Um, actually you can just run each browser on the same page at the same time and compare speed.  Just because there is a bottleneck at the network doesn't mean I want my browser to render slowly once it gets the content.  IE 8 does render slower, often visibly slower.  And IE 8 is very slow in starting, launching a new tab, exiting, and executing javascript.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is my response to some of the claims : Ease of Use Features like Accelerators , Web Slices and Visual Search Suggestions make Internet Explorer 8 easiest to use.IE 8 is the most clunky of the listed browsers , with overly large tabs , poorly laid out UI , and , non-intuitive customization of toolbars .
Why ca n't I just drag and drop 'commands ?
'Web Standards It 's a tie .
Internet Explorer 8 passes more of the World Wide Web Consortium 's CSS 2.1 test cases than any other browser , but Firefox 3 has more support for some evolving standards.Web Standards support is so much better than in IE 6 and 7 , they finally have CSS 2.1 support , while nearly every other browser is adding CSS 3 features all the time .
IE 8 is better because they are n't using modern technology ?
That 's why IE 6 sucked for years , because it was so backwards.Developer Tools Of course Internet Explorer 8 wins this one .
There 's no need to install tools separately , and it offers better features like JavaScript profiling.I 'm a developer .
IE 8 's developer tools are n't even enough to debug why a standards complaint page is n't working in IE 8 , let alone to use during active development .
" JavaScript profiling " is either not really a feature , or not a useful one .
Again , as a developer I only mess with IE 8 's developer tools if I need to work around a problem that is being caused by IE 8 .
As abysmal as developer tools are in IE 8 there is one browser with worse tools : IE 6 .
( anyone remember the completely unhelpful javascript error message , " Object expected error on line 0 ?
" Reliability Only Internet Explorer 8 has both tab isolation and crash recovery features ; Firefox and Chrome have one or the other.While the statement is true , it is n't about reliability .
It 's about what happens when the browser does something bad .
If a browser were reliable it would n't need crash recovery .
As far as I know no browser offers a way to kill an offending tab .
I do n't often see a tab 'crash ' but will often see one lock up or hang .
( generally not the browsers fault , so much as bad javascript ) So while tab isolation is a step in the right direction it does n't contribute much yet .
I have yet to have an instance of Firefox crash and not recover on relaunch .
IE 8 will sometimes recover ok , but often not.Customizability Sure , Firefox may win in sheer number of add-ons , but many of the customizations you 'd want to download for Firefox are already a part of Internet Explorer 8 - right out of the box.How does IE 8 know which features I want ?
Just because a product has more features installed ( which can not be easily removed ) , 'out of the box, ' does n't make it in any way customizable.Compatibility Internet Explorer 8 is more compatible with more sites on the Internet than any other browser.More compatible with more sites ?
I would like to see some evidence or proof of this claim .
As a developer , I write for modern web standards , and that means my web applications/sites work with Firefox , Safari , Chrome , and Opera , with no problems .
If need be , I write hacks to make things OK , in IE 6,7 , and/or 8.Performance Knowing the top speed of a car does n't tell you how fast you can drive in rush hour .
To actually see the difference in page loads between all three browsers , you need slow-motion video .
This one 's also a tie .
Um , actually you can just run each browser on the same page at the same time and compare speed .
Just because there is a bottleneck at the network does n't mean I want my browser to render slowly once it gets the content .
IE 8 does render slower , often visibly slower .
And IE 8 is very slow in starting , launching a new tab , exiting , and executing javascript .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is my response to some of the claims:Ease of Use
Features like Accelerators, Web Slices and Visual Search Suggestions make Internet Explorer 8 easiest to use.IE 8 is the most clunky of the listed browsers, with overly large tabs, poorly laid out UI, and, non-intuitive customization of toolbars.
Why can't I just drag and drop 'commands?
'Web Standards
It's a tie.
Internet Explorer 8 passes more of the World Wide Web Consortium's CSS 2.1 test cases than any other browser, but Firefox 3 has more support for some evolving standards.Web Standards support is so much better than in IE 6 and 7, they finally have CSS 2.1 support, while nearly every other browser is adding CSS 3 features all the time.
IE 8 is better because they aren't using modern technology?
That's why IE 6 sucked for years, because it was so backwards.Developer Tools
Of course Internet Explorer 8 wins this one.
There's no need to install tools separately, and it offers better features like JavaScript profiling.I'm a developer.
IE 8's developer tools aren't even enough to debug why a standards complaint page isn't working in IE 8, let alone to use during active development.
"JavaScript profiling"  is either not really a feature, or not a useful one.
Again, as a developer I only mess with IE 8's  developer tools if I need to work around a problem that is being caused by IE 8.
As abysmal as developer tools are in IE 8 there is one browser with worse tools: IE 6.
(anyone remember the completely unhelpful javascript error message, "Object expected error on line 0?
"Reliability
Only Internet Explorer 8 has both tab isolation and crash recovery features; Firefox and Chrome have one or the other.While the statement is true, it isn't about reliability.
It's about what happens when the browser does something bad.
If a browser were reliable it wouldn't need crash recovery.
As far as I know no browser offers a way to kill an offending tab.
I don't often see a tab 'crash' but will often see one lock up or hang.
(generally not the browsers fault, so much as bad javascript)  So while tab isolation is a step in the right direction it doesn't contribute much yet.
I have yet to have an instance of Firefox crash and not recover on relaunch.
IE 8 will sometimes recover ok, but often not.Customizability
Sure, Firefox may win in sheer number of add-ons, but many of the customizations you'd want to download for Firefox are already a part of Internet Explorer 8 - right out of the box.How does IE 8 know which features I want?
Just because a product has more features installed (which cannot be easily removed), 'out of the box,' doesn't make it in any way customizable.Compatibility
Internet Explorer 8 is more compatible with more sites on the Internet than any other browser.More compatible with more sites?
I would like to see some evidence or proof of this claim.
As a developer, I write for modern web standards, and that means my web applications/sites work with Firefox, Safari, Chrome, and Opera, with no problems.
If need be, I write hacks to make things OK, in IE 6,7, and/or 8.Performance
Knowing the top speed of a car doesn't tell you how fast you can drive in rush hour.
To actually see the difference in page loads between all three browsers, you need slow-motion video.
This one's also a tie.
Um, actually you can just run each browser on the same page at the same time and compare speed.
Just because there is a bottleneck at the network doesn't mean I want my browser to render slowly once it gets the content.
IE 8 does render slower, often visibly slower.
And IE 8 is very slow in starting, launching a new tab, exiting, and executing javascript.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389045</id>
	<title>MS business model: Take advantage of weaknesses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245422640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft is widely misunderstood. People think Microsoft is a software company that is often abusive. But it isn't. It's an abuse company that uses software to deliver abuse. Like for example, deliberately releasing faulty versions of operating systems.

<br> <br>Microsoft got as big as it is only because it was possible to take advantage of the ignorance of the average person about computers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft is widely misunderstood .
People think Microsoft is a software company that is often abusive .
But it is n't .
It 's an abuse company that uses software to deliver abuse .
Like for example , deliberately releasing faulty versions of operating systems .
Microsoft got as big as it is only because it was possible to take advantage of the ignorance of the average person about computers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft is widely misunderstood.
People think Microsoft is a software company that is often abusive.
But it isn't.
It's an abuse company that uses software to deliver abuse.
Like for example, deliberately releasing faulty versions of operating systems.
Microsoft got as big as it is only because it was possible to take advantage of the ignorance of the average person about computers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388233</id>
	<title>Microsoft going the way of Motorola</title>
	<author>Dan667</author>
	<datestamp>1245418860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This looks like the same thing that happened when Motorola started hemorrhaging.  There were to many middle managers and they were all trying to save their jobs so they did what ever they could to look like they were doing something even if it was not value added or looked ridiculous in the marketplace.  If this is not a fine example of that nothing is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This looks like the same thing that happened when Motorola started hemorrhaging .
There were to many middle managers and they were all trying to save their jobs so they did what ever they could to look like they were doing something even if it was not value added or looked ridiculous in the marketplace .
If this is not a fine example of that nothing is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This looks like the same thing that happened when Motorola started hemorrhaging.
There were to many middle managers and they were all trying to save their jobs so they did what ever they could to look like they were doing something even if it was not value added or looked ridiculous in the marketplace.
If this is not a fine example of that nothing is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388785</id>
	<title>Re:IE8 performance?</title>
	<author>BarMonger</author>
	<datestamp>1245421500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just opened that site in Both IE8 and Firefox on my laptop.</p><p>The animations are exactly the same and the performance is the same.<br>The only difference is a minor difference in the fonts displayed, but that's just standard browser difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just opened that site in Both IE8 and Firefox on my laptop.The animations are exactly the same and the performance is the same.The only difference is a minor difference in the fonts displayed , but that 's just standard browser difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just opened that site in Both IE8 and Firefox on my laptop.The animations are exactly the same and the performance is the same.The only difference is a minor difference in the fonts displayed, but that's just standard browser difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28398409</id>
	<title>IE is NOT a web browser...</title>
	<author>soporific16</author>
	<datestamp>1245423240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>IE is NOT a web browser...It's an internet advertising companion. Bonus feature: surf the web! But while you do, we will throw as many ads as your poor brain can handle, and then double the number, for each and every site that allows such abominations.<p>.</p><p>Renaming IE shortcuts from 'Launch Internet Explorer' to 'Launch Internet Advertising Companion' since 1999.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IE is NOT a web browser...It 's an internet advertising companion .
Bonus feature : surf the web !
But while you do , we will throw as many ads as your poor brain can handle , and then double the number , for each and every site that allows such abominations..Renaming IE shortcuts from 'Launch Internet Explorer ' to 'Launch Internet Advertising Companion ' since 1999 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE is NOT a web browser...It's an internet advertising companion.
Bonus feature: surf the web!
But while you do, we will throw as many ads as your poor brain can handle, and then double the number, for each and every site that allows such abominations..Renaming IE shortcuts from 'Launch Internet Explorer' to 'Launch Internet Advertising Companion' since 1999.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28392127</id>
	<title>Re:Lies and Lying Liars.</title>
	<author>papershark</author>
	<datestamp>1245435720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everything they sounds pretty much meaningless enough sales newspeak to avoid legal action.<br><br>It's not a lie if I say  'cassette tape sure beats CD's for rewindability'  (BIG GREEN TICK)<br><br>or<br><br>That cassette tapes have a 'punch out tab security system that your music CD's lack' (BIG GREEN TICK)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everything they sounds pretty much meaningless enough sales newspeak to avoid legal action.It 's not a lie if I say 'cassette tape sure beats CD 's for rewindability ' ( BIG GREEN TICK ) orThat cassette tapes have a 'punch out tab security system that your music CD 's lack ' ( BIG GREEN TICK )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everything they sounds pretty much meaningless enough sales newspeak to avoid legal action.It's not a lie if I say  'cassette tape sure beats CD's for rewindability'  (BIG GREEN TICK)orThat cassette tapes have a 'punch out tab security system that your music CD's lack' (BIG GREEN TICK)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28390965</id>
	<title>Re:I got the facts ...</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1245430620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ever notice something about Microsoft sites like this?  There's no "Feedback" button.  No "Comment" block.  Nada.  They want to forcefeed their version of the facts, without any input from the users.  Tarzan beats his chest, and screams to the world how great he is, but the deaf bastard doesn't want to hear Jane sniveling about his premature ejaculation problem.  Visit Firefox's site, and you're INVITED to get involved and send feedback.  Ditto Chrome.  Not sure about Opera, but I'm sure they look for feedback.  This is part of the reason IE sucked so horribly until recently.  IE7 was the first version to have so much as TABS FFS.  IE8 finally has some additional useful features - mostly just thrown out there in response to declinind market share going to browsers that already offered cool features.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever notice something about Microsoft sites like this ?
There 's no " Feedback " button .
No " Comment " block .
Nada. They want to forcefeed their version of the facts , without any input from the users .
Tarzan beats his chest , and screams to the world how great he is , but the deaf bastard does n't want to hear Jane sniveling about his premature ejaculation problem .
Visit Firefox 's site , and you 're INVITED to get involved and send feedback .
Ditto Chrome .
Not sure about Opera , but I 'm sure they look for feedback .
This is part of the reason IE sucked so horribly until recently .
IE7 was the first version to have so much as TABS FFS .
IE8 finally has some additional useful features - mostly just thrown out there in response to declinind market share going to browsers that already offered cool features .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever notice something about Microsoft sites like this?
There's no "Feedback" button.
No "Comment" block.
Nada.  They want to forcefeed their version of the facts, without any input from the users.
Tarzan beats his chest, and screams to the world how great he is, but the deaf bastard doesn't want to hear Jane sniveling about his premature ejaculation problem.
Visit Firefox's site, and you're INVITED to get involved and send feedback.
Ditto Chrome.
Not sure about Opera, but I'm sure they look for feedback.
This is part of the reason IE sucked so horribly until recently.
IE7 was the first version to have so much as TABS FFS.
IE8 finally has some additional useful features - mostly just thrown out there in response to declinind market share going to browsers that already offered cool features.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28392031</id>
	<title>Where's the score on cross-platform support?</title>
	<author>ghbpiper</author>
	<datestamp>1245435300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Funny, didn't see one thing about how well it works on Mac/*nix/mobile devices.  Did I miss something?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny , did n't see one thing about how well it works on Mac/ * nix/mobile devices .
Did I miss something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny, didn't see one thing about how well it works on Mac/*nix/mobile devices.
Did I miss something?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389553</id>
	<title>Re:Lies and Lying Liars.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245424680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>Security - IE8: *  FF:  CR:  - Internet Explorer 8 takes the cake with better phishing and malware protection, as well as protection from emerging threats.</p></div></blockquote></div><p>"Takes the cake" is a lie?<br>I see what you did there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Security - IE8 : * FF : CR : - Internet Explorer 8 takes the cake with better phishing and malware protection , as well as protection from emerging threats .
" Takes the cake " is a lie ? I see what you did there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Security - IE8: *  FF:  CR:  - Internet Explorer 8 takes the cake with better phishing and malware protection, as well as protection from emerging threats.
"Takes the cake" is a lie?I see what you did there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28444259</id>
	<title>Re:Did you notice the browsers they used?</title>
	<author>laurelraven</author>
	<datestamp>1245747900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I did notice that in the report they cited as proof of their security from NSS Labs claims that Firefox only "caught" 30\% of malware, and Opera apparently has "virtually no protection" against malware, having only "caught" 5\%.  What the bloody hell does that even mean?

I've been using Firefox and Opera for years now, and ever since I switched from IE, I stopped needing to perform weekly malware scans, because I just wasn't picking any up.  I don't know what this "catching" metric they are using is, but why the hell should Opera bother to "catch" malware that it is already invulnerable to?

Where are some REAL metrics that aren't put together by Microsoft shills?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did notice that in the report they cited as proof of their security from NSS Labs claims that Firefox only " caught " 30 \ % of malware , and Opera apparently has " virtually no protection " against malware , having only " caught " 5 \ % .
What the bloody hell does that even mean ?
I 've been using Firefox and Opera for years now , and ever since I switched from IE , I stopped needing to perform weekly malware scans , because I just was n't picking any up .
I do n't know what this " catching " metric they are using is , but why the hell should Opera bother to " catch " malware that it is already invulnerable to ?
Where are some REAL metrics that are n't put together by Microsoft shills ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did notice that in the report they cited as proof of their security from NSS Labs claims that Firefox only "caught" 30\% of malware, and Opera apparently has "virtually no protection" against malware, having only "caught" 5\%.
What the bloody hell does that even mean?
I've been using Firefox and Opera for years now, and ever since I switched from IE, I stopped needing to perform weekly malware scans, because I just wasn't picking any up.
I don't know what this "catching" metric they are using is, but why the hell should Opera bother to "catch" malware that it is already invulnerable to?
Where are some REAL metrics that aren't put together by Microsoft shills?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28390839</id>
	<title>Re:Who is the target audience?</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1245430140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Managers who tell IT what to do. That's the target... get somebody up the ranks to set the rules down from on high because their golf buddy knows a lot about this tech stuff, and he told them about this site. Besides... it's Microsoft! They're a huge company... why would they lie?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Managers who tell IT what to do .
That 's the target... get somebody up the ranks to set the rules down from on high because their golf buddy knows a lot about this tech stuff , and he told them about this site .
Besides... it 's Microsoft !
They 're a huge company... why would they lie ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Managers who tell IT what to do.
That's the target... get somebody up the ranks to set the rules down from on high because their golf buddy knows a lot about this tech stuff, and he told them about this site.
Besides... it's Microsoft!
They're a huge company... why would they lie?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389349</id>
	<title>Some IE8 facts you won't see in a Microsoft ad</title>
	<author>WidgetGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1245423840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Microsoft's 'compatibility list' of sites that don't render correctly in Internet Exploder 8 RC1 &mdash; requiring some non-standards mojo from the browser to look right &mdash; numbers some 2,400. They're off-the-beaten-path sites like Amazon, Google, Microsoft and YouTube."  <a href="http://gizmodo.com/5156518/internet-explorer-8s-incompatability-list-is-really-sad" title="gizmodo.com" rel="nofollow">Gizmodo Blog</a> [gizmodo.com] <br> <br>
The link to this article was in the first five Bing results given the keywords "internet exploder."  I sure am glad Microsoft has decided to attack that "search overload" problem we've all been complaining about.<br> <br>
Just trying to spread a little Friday cheer...</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Microsoft 's 'compatibility list ' of sites that do n't render correctly in Internet Exploder 8 RC1    requiring some non-standards mojo from the browser to look right    numbers some 2,400 .
They 're off-the-beaten-path sites like Amazon , Google , Microsoft and YouTube .
" Gizmodo Blog [ gizmodo.com ] The link to this article was in the first five Bing results given the keywords " internet exploder .
" I sure am glad Microsoft has decided to attack that " search overload " problem we 've all been complaining about .
Just trying to spread a little Friday cheer.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Microsoft's 'compatibility list' of sites that don't render correctly in Internet Exploder 8 RC1 — requiring some non-standards mojo from the browser to look right — numbers some 2,400.
They're off-the-beaten-path sites like Amazon, Google, Microsoft and YouTube.
"  Gizmodo Blog [gizmodo.com]  
The link to this article was in the first five Bing results given the keywords "internet exploder.
"  I sure am glad Microsoft has decided to attack that "search overload" problem we've all been complaining about.
Just trying to spread a little Friday cheer...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28390975</id>
	<title>Re:Translation</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1245430680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But it isn't installed by default. Unlike with Windows, you CHOOSE which parts get installed. If you don't want a browser, no browser is installed. If you want five, five are installed.</p><p>Linux doesn't force, it offers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But it is n't installed by default .
Unlike with Windows , you CHOOSE which parts get installed .
If you do n't want a browser , no browser is installed .
If you want five , five are installed.Linux does n't force , it offers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But it isn't installed by default.
Unlike with Windows, you CHOOSE which parts get installed.
If you don't want a browser, no browser is installed.
If you want five, five are installed.Linux doesn't force, it offers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388465</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28390551</id>
	<title>Re:Lies and Lying Liars.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245428820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interestingly it would appear that Microsoft is only prepared to blatantly lie in the US and not the UK.</p><p>Compare:<br><a href="http://www.microsoft.com/windows/internet-explorer/default.aspx" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">IE US Home Page</a> [microsoft.com]<br><a href="http://www.microsoft.com/uk/windows/internet-explorer" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">IE UK Home Page</a> [microsoft.com]</p><p>It seems you cannot get the "facts" in the UK.<br>(Perhaps Microsoft is taking a leaf out of the UK governments book?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interestingly it would appear that Microsoft is only prepared to blatantly lie in the US and not the UK.Compare : IE US Home Page [ microsoft.com ] IE UK Home Page [ microsoft.com ] It seems you can not get the " facts " in the UK .
( Perhaps Microsoft is taking a leaf out of the UK governments book ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interestingly it would appear that Microsoft is only prepared to blatantly lie in the US and not the UK.Compare:IE US Home Page [microsoft.com]IE UK Home Page [microsoft.com]It seems you cannot get the "facts" in the UK.
(Perhaps Microsoft is taking a leaf out of the UK governments book?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387917</id>
	<title>Hrmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245416940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They seemed to take out a couple of categories from the original chart.</p><p>* Browser most likely to cause the user to pull out hair - IE8<br>* Browser able to download viruses and malware the fastest - IE8<br>* Browser able to crash and take your whole OS down faster than a $2 hooker - IE8</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They seemed to take out a couple of categories from the original chart .
* Browser most likely to cause the user to pull out hair - IE8 * Browser able to download viruses and malware the fastest - IE8 * Browser able to crash and take your whole OS down faster than a $ 2 hooker - IE8</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They seemed to take out a couple of categories from the original chart.
* Browser most likely to cause the user to pull out hair - IE8* Browser able to download viruses and malware the fastest - IE8* Browser able to crash and take your whole OS down faster than a $2 hooker - IE8</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389653</id>
	<title>Parody</title>
	<author>Bill Dimm</author>
	<datestamp>1245425160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://kilianvalkhof.com/ie8fun/" title="kilianvalkhof.com">Parody of Microsoft's browser comparison</a> [kilianvalkhof.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Parody of Microsoft 's browser comparison [ kilianvalkhof.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Parody of Microsoft's browser comparison [kilianvalkhof.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388919</id>
	<title>How to destroy the meaning of a word.</title>
	<author>MadJo</author>
	<datestamp>1245422160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>fact (plural facts)</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 1. An honest observation.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 2. Something actual as opposed to invented.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; In this story, the Gettysburg Address is a fact, but the rest is fiction.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 3. Something which has become real.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The promise of television became a fact in the 1920s.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 4. Something concrete used as a basis for further interpretation.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Let's look at the facts of the case before deciding.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 5. An objective consensus on a fundamental reality that has been agreed upon by a substantial number of people.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; There is no doubting the fact that the Earth orbits the Sun.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 6. Information about a particular subject.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The facts about space travel.</p><p>Microsoft adds this to the list:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 7. Something Microsoft pulls out of their asses.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; "Get the facts".</p><p>They have given bogus 'facts' about their software offerings with regards to Linux, and now to Firefox. Do they think we're idiots? Are they really that scared about competition? That they need to resort to outright lying? How can you build a trust-relationship with them, if you can't trust them when they come out with 'facts'? What happened to ethics?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>fact ( plural facts )       1 .
An honest observation .
      2 .
Something actual as opposed to invented .
                    In this story , the Gettysburg Address is a fact , but the rest is fiction .
      3 .
Something which has become real .
                    The promise of television became a fact in the 1920s .
      4 .
Something concrete used as a basis for further interpretation .
                    Let 's look at the facts of the case before deciding .
      5 .
An objective consensus on a fundamental reality that has been agreed upon by a substantial number of people .
                    There is no doubting the fact that the Earth orbits the Sun .
      6 .
Information about a particular subject .
                    The facts about space travel.Microsoft adds this to the list :       7 .
Something Microsoft pulls out of their asses .
                    " Get the facts " .They have given bogus 'facts ' about their software offerings with regards to Linux , and now to Firefox .
Do they think we 're idiots ?
Are they really that scared about competition ?
That they need to resort to outright lying ?
How can you build a trust-relationship with them , if you ca n't trust them when they come out with 'facts ' ?
What happened to ethics ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fact (plural facts)
      1.
An honest observation.
      2.
Something actual as opposed to invented.
                    In this story, the Gettysburg Address is a fact, but the rest is fiction.
      3.
Something which has become real.
                    The promise of television became a fact in the 1920s.
      4.
Something concrete used as a basis for further interpretation.
                    Let's look at the facts of the case before deciding.
      5.
An objective consensus on a fundamental reality that has been agreed upon by a substantial number of people.
                    There is no doubting the fact that the Earth orbits the Sun.
      6.
Information about a particular subject.
                    The facts about space travel.Microsoft adds this to the list:
      7.
Something Microsoft pulls out of their asses.
                    "Get the facts".They have given bogus 'facts' about their software offerings with regards to Linux, and now to Firefox.
Do they think we're idiots?
Are they really that scared about competition?
That they need to resort to outright lying?
How can you build a trust-relationship with them, if you can't trust them when they come out with 'facts'?
What happened to ethics?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389255</id>
	<title>Re:IE8 performance?</title>
	<author>WiFiBro</author>
	<datestamp>1245423360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure if you can blame any browser if your frontpage has 188 Errors, 6 warnings  on the html validator.<br>(try hiding your script language) !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure if you can blame any browser if your frontpage has 188 Errors , 6 warnings on the html validator .
( try hiding your script language ) !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure if you can blame any browser if your frontpage has 188 Errors, 6 warnings  on the html validator.
(try hiding your script language) !</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388277</id>
	<title>Only three browsers?! What about Safari and Opera?</title>
	<author>jskoda</author>
	<datestamp>1245419160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How come Safari and Opera got left off the list?  I know the Redmond answer already: they aren't popular enough and therefore aren't something a user would be interested in.  Perhaps they aren't listed because they would skew the results away from IE8.  Even if the results weren't skewed, leaving out other browsers leaves the door open for people to speculate why those browsers were left off the list.

Isn't Microsoft bribing people to use IE8 with that $10,000 scavenger hunt thing?  I can see the scripting now... if (IE8) { runScam(noobUser); } else { showPage(); }</htmltext>
<tokenext>How come Safari and Opera got left off the list ?
I know the Redmond answer already : they are n't popular enough and therefore are n't something a user would be interested in .
Perhaps they are n't listed because they would skew the results away from IE8 .
Even if the results were n't skewed , leaving out other browsers leaves the door open for people to speculate why those browsers were left off the list .
Is n't Microsoft bribing people to use IE8 with that $ 10,000 scavenger hunt thing ?
I can see the scripting now... if ( IE8 ) { runScam ( noobUser ) ; } else { showPage ( ) ; }</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How come Safari and Opera got left off the list?
I know the Redmond answer already: they aren't popular enough and therefore aren't something a user would be interested in.
Perhaps they aren't listed because they would skew the results away from IE8.
Even if the results weren't skewed, leaving out other browsers leaves the door open for people to speculate why those browsers were left off the list.
Isn't Microsoft bribing people to use IE8 with that $10,000 scavenger hunt thing?
I can see the scripting now... if (IE8) { runScam(noobUser); } else { showPage(); }</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28390327</id>
	<title>Wow.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245427800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just... wow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just... wow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just... wow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28391149</id>
	<title>Re:Can we come up with coherent rebuttals?</title>
	<author>mdm-adph</author>
	<datestamp>1245431460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to needlessly self-promote, but I did a write-up on a point-by-point basis on my blog: <a href="http://mdm-adph.blogspot.com/2009/06/even-when-microsoft-gets-it-right-they.html" title="blogspot.com">http://mdm-adph.blogspot.com/2009/06/even-when-microsoft-gets-it-right-they.html</a> [blogspot.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to needlessly self-promote , but I did a write-up on a point-by-point basis on my blog : http : //mdm-adph.blogspot.com/2009/06/even-when-microsoft-gets-it-right-they.html [ blogspot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to needlessly self-promote, but I did a write-up on a point-by-point basis on my blog: http://mdm-adph.blogspot.com/2009/06/even-when-microsoft-gets-it-right-they.html [blogspot.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28391419</id>
	<title>This is one of the reasons</title>
	<author>JohnnyGTO</author>
	<datestamp>1245432600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I left Microsoft, if they have to bend the truth all the time there must be something to hide.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I left Microsoft , if they have to bend the truth all the time there must be something to hide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I left Microsoft, if they have to bend the truth all the time there must be something to hide.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28391373</id>
	<title>Re:Two words: Active Directory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245432360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Do Mozilla, Opera, and Google provide analogous tools to manage thousands of installations of Firefox, Opera, or Chrome?</p></div><p>Alternatively, you could ask yourself: Do I fucking care? Or do you really believe that any organization which "manages thousands of installations" would also be so retarded as to regard marketing drivel as fact?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do Mozilla , Opera , and Google provide analogous tools to manage thousands of installations of Firefox , Opera , or Chrome ? Alternatively , you could ask yourself : Do I fucking care ?
Or do you really believe that any organization which " manages thousands of installations " would also be so retarded as to regard marketing drivel as fact ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do Mozilla, Opera, and Google provide analogous tools to manage thousands of installations of Firefox, Opera, or Chrome?Alternatively, you could ask yourself: Do I fucking care?
Or do you really believe that any organization which "manages thousands of installations" would also be so retarded as to regard marketing drivel as fact?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389777</id>
	<title>Re:Age</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245425580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You had to post because someone was wrong on the internet?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P
There is a XKCD comic regarding that response.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) (I am too lazy right now to look it up though)</htmltext>
<tokenext>You had to post because someone was wrong on the internet ?
: P There is a XKCD comic regarding that response .
: ) ( I am too lazy right now to look it up though )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You had to post because someone was wrong on the internet?
:P
There is a XKCD comic regarding that response.
:) (I am too lazy right now to look it up though)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28391817</id>
	<title>Re:Did you notice the browsers they used?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245434220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firefox 3.5 is indeed RC1 now, though it's sadly still at a lurching 93/100 on Acid3.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox 3.5 is indeed RC1 now , though it 's sadly still at a lurching 93/100 on Acid3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox 3.5 is indeed RC1 now, though it's sadly still at a lurching 93/100 on Acid3.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388203</id>
	<title>Re:It's Too Late, I'm Done with IE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245418680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed - as a developer, I'm sick of Microsoft throwing its weight around trying to force the world to accept its standard as THE standard.  This just doesn't work in the age of the web!  They were sued over it when they tried to publish J++ (their 'Standard' microsoftian Java)... they've been in countless anti-trust lawsuits over IE...</p><p>When will they learn?  The way to dominate the market isn't to force your own sub-par standards on everyone else - it's to adopt early and adopt often.  Be the most compatible and feature-complete and you will be a developer favorite for years to come.</p><p>As for IE - I am in agreement with eldavojohn - I will never again use IE for my primary browser.  Microsoft did far too much damage with their browser under that name for IE 5 &amp; 6.  If Microsoft is such a good marketing company, then why don't they recognize a product that is not salvageable when they see one?  If I were in their unfortunate shoes, I'd re-brand and rename IE... give it a nice new coat of paint and call it something new and different... make it sound like its not just IE with a candy coating.  Hey - us IT folks would know better, but it might help them win back part of the non-technical market.</p><p>Most folks I know, IT or not, have a burning hatred of IE for all the s*** it put them through in its earlier revisions.  They will not come back to IE... but they may come back to a Microsoft browser just so long as it doesn't look or feel like IE on the exterior.  If Microsoft can't figure this little marketing ploy out then they are even more irrelevant these days than I thought them to be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed - as a developer , I 'm sick of Microsoft throwing its weight around trying to force the world to accept its standard as THE standard .
This just does n't work in the age of the web !
They were sued over it when they tried to publish J + + ( their 'Standard ' microsoftian Java ) ... they 've been in countless anti-trust lawsuits over IE...When will they learn ?
The way to dominate the market is n't to force your own sub-par standards on everyone else - it 's to adopt early and adopt often .
Be the most compatible and feature-complete and you will be a developer favorite for years to come.As for IE - I am in agreement with eldavojohn - I will never again use IE for my primary browser .
Microsoft did far too much damage with their browser under that name for IE 5 &amp; 6 .
If Microsoft is such a good marketing company , then why do n't they recognize a product that is not salvageable when they see one ?
If I were in their unfortunate shoes , I 'd re-brand and rename IE... give it a nice new coat of paint and call it something new and different... make it sound like its not just IE with a candy coating .
Hey - us IT folks would know better , but it might help them win back part of the non-technical market.Most folks I know , IT or not , have a burning hatred of IE for all the s * * * it put them through in its earlier revisions .
They will not come back to IE... but they may come back to a Microsoft browser just so long as it does n't look or feel like IE on the exterior .
If Microsoft ca n't figure this little marketing ploy out then they are even more irrelevant these days than I thought them to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed - as a developer, I'm sick of Microsoft throwing its weight around trying to force the world to accept its standard as THE standard.
This just doesn't work in the age of the web!
They were sued over it when they tried to publish J++ (their 'Standard' microsoftian Java)... they've been in countless anti-trust lawsuits over IE...When will they learn?
The way to dominate the market isn't to force your own sub-par standards on everyone else - it's to adopt early and adopt often.
Be the most compatible and feature-complete and you will be a developer favorite for years to come.As for IE - I am in agreement with eldavojohn - I will never again use IE for my primary browser.
Microsoft did far too much damage with their browser under that name for IE 5 &amp; 6.
If Microsoft is such a good marketing company, then why don't they recognize a product that is not salvageable when they see one?
If I were in their unfortunate shoes, I'd re-brand and rename IE... give it a nice new coat of paint and call it something new and different... make it sound like its not just IE with a candy coating.
Hey - us IT folks would know better, but it might help them win back part of the non-technical market.Most folks I know, IT or not, have a burning hatred of IE for all the s*** it put them through in its earlier revisions.
They will not come back to IE... but they may come back to a Microsoft browser just so long as it doesn't look or feel like IE on the exterior.
If Microsoft can't figure this little marketing ploy out then they are even more irrelevant these days than I thought them to be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388833</id>
	<title>Re:I got the facts ...</title>
	<author>miknix</author>
	<datestamp>1245421800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is also fact cows can fly, I swear I saw one yesterday.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is also fact cows can fly , I swear I saw one yesterday .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is also fact cows can fly, I swear I saw one yesterday.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28391313</id>
	<title>Choose "none of the above".</title>
	<author>gspawn</author>
	<datestamp>1245432120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the time it takes for me to start Firefox, I can fire up Chrome and have my email checked. IE8 does run faster on some critical sites, so it's the only other browser I ever touch anymore. Say what you want about horrible advertising, but Firefox is playing catch-up and this is the perfect time for Microsoft to pounce (although it would be nice if they did so in a non-M$ way).</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the time it takes for me to start Firefox , I can fire up Chrome and have my email checked .
IE8 does run faster on some critical sites , so it 's the only other browser I ever touch anymore .
Say what you want about horrible advertising , but Firefox is playing catch-up and this is the perfect time for Microsoft to pounce ( although it would be nice if they did so in a non-M $ way ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the time it takes for me to start Firefox, I can fire up Chrome and have my email checked.
IE8 does run faster on some critical sites, so it's the only other browser I ever touch anymore.
Say what you want about horrible advertising, but Firefox is playing catch-up and this is the perfect time for Microsoft to pounce (although it would be nice if they did so in a non-M$ way).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389469</id>
	<title>It's OK, folks</title>
	<author>Nerdposeur</author>
	<datestamp>1245424380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, this site is full of lies. But a lot of people out there <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4MwTvtyrUQ" title="youtube.com">don't know the difference between a browser and a search engine</a> [youtube.com].</p><p>So even if this is their first exposure to the concept, at least it tells them there are other browsers. And if MS auto-updates them from IE6 to IE8 - hooray! It's an improvement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , this site is full of lies .
But a lot of people out there do n't know the difference between a browser and a search engine [ youtube.com ] .So even if this is their first exposure to the concept , at least it tells them there are other browsers .
And if MS auto-updates them from IE6 to IE8 - hooray !
It 's an improvement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, this site is full of lies.
But a lot of people out there don't know the difference between a browser and a search engine [youtube.com].So even if this is their first exposure to the concept, at least it tells them there are other browsers.
And if MS auto-updates them from IE6 to IE8 - hooray!
It's an improvement.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28391903</id>
	<title>Re:what a laugh</title>
	<author>Phroggy</author>
	<datestamp>1245434700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> IE is going to have to work damn hard to get rid of that reputation amoungst developers</p></div><p>You're absolutely right, but to be fair, they really have been working damn hard recently.  IE8 sucks a <b>lot</b> less than previous versions.  But just fixing IE won't magically solve the problem - the other required component is time.</p><p>Web developers don't care that much that IE8 doesn't suck, because they still have to support IE6.  However, a lot of major web sites have decided to drop support for IE6 soon, which will be the catalyst that finally pushes most of IE6's users to upgrade.  Businesses are also starting to see the writing on the wall, and they're working on fixing their intranet crap so it works in newer browsers.  In time, usage of IE6 will have dropped far enough that web developers will feel confident about ignoring IE6, the same way they ignore IE5 today, and ignored IE4 a few years ago.  When that happens, there will be much rejoicing.</p><p>Unfortunately IE7 will be with us for some time, but thanks to widespread (but only partially justified) hatred of Windows Vista, I suspect a lot of people will be upgrading to Windows 7 next year as the XP machines they've been clinging to eventually die.  The vast majority of people upgrading from IE6 will be going straight to IE8.  So while IE7 will be around for a long time, hopefully it won't be around in large numbers, and maybe we can start to ignore it too in a couple years.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IE is going to have to work damn hard to get rid of that reputation amoungst developersYou 're absolutely right , but to be fair , they really have been working damn hard recently .
IE8 sucks a lot less than previous versions .
But just fixing IE wo n't magically solve the problem - the other required component is time.Web developers do n't care that much that IE8 does n't suck , because they still have to support IE6 .
However , a lot of major web sites have decided to drop support for IE6 soon , which will be the catalyst that finally pushes most of IE6 's users to upgrade .
Businesses are also starting to see the writing on the wall , and they 're working on fixing their intranet crap so it works in newer browsers .
In time , usage of IE6 will have dropped far enough that web developers will feel confident about ignoring IE6 , the same way they ignore IE5 today , and ignored IE4 a few years ago .
When that happens , there will be much rejoicing.Unfortunately IE7 will be with us for some time , but thanks to widespread ( but only partially justified ) hatred of Windows Vista , I suspect a lot of people will be upgrading to Windows 7 next year as the XP machines they 've been clinging to eventually die .
The vast majority of people upgrading from IE6 will be going straight to IE8 .
So while IE7 will be around for a long time , hopefully it wo n't be around in large numbers , and maybe we can start to ignore it too in a couple years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> IE is going to have to work damn hard to get rid of that reputation amoungst developersYou're absolutely right, but to be fair, they really have been working damn hard recently.
IE8 sucks a lot less than previous versions.
But just fixing IE won't magically solve the problem - the other required component is time.Web developers don't care that much that IE8 doesn't suck, because they still have to support IE6.
However, a lot of major web sites have decided to drop support for IE6 soon, which will be the catalyst that finally pushes most of IE6's users to upgrade.
Businesses are also starting to see the writing on the wall, and they're working on fixing their intranet crap so it works in newer browsers.
In time, usage of IE6 will have dropped far enough that web developers will feel confident about ignoring IE6, the same way they ignore IE5 today, and ignored IE4 a few years ago.
When that happens, there will be much rejoicing.Unfortunately IE7 will be with us for some time, but thanks to widespread (but only partially justified) hatred of Windows Vista, I suspect a lot of people will be upgrading to Windows 7 next year as the XP machines they've been clinging to eventually die.
The vast majority of people upgrading from IE6 will be going straight to IE8.
So while IE7 will be around for a long time, hopefully it won't be around in large numbers, and maybe we can start to ignore it too in a couple years.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387885</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387841</id>
	<title>Sure...</title>
	<author>Drakkenmensch</author>
	<datestamp>1245416520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It even claims to have Firefox beat in 'customizability.'"</p></div><p>Of course, they only get to that point by sneaking in windows updates into your Firefox addons that cannot be removed short of a massively complicated and obscure fix...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It even claims to have Firefox beat in 'customizability .
' " Of course , they only get to that point by sneaking in windows updates into your Firefox addons that can not be removed short of a massively complicated and obscure fix.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It even claims to have Firefox beat in 'customizability.
'"Of course, they only get to that point by sneaking in windows updates into your Firefox addons that cannot be removed short of a massively complicated and obscure fix...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389193</id>
	<title>FTC Advertising Guidelines</title>
	<author>awitod</author>
	<datestamp>1245423120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think Microsoft is over the line with this campaign from a legal standpoint and will get the smackdown from the FTC.<br>Fromt the STATEMENT OF POLICY REGARDING COMPARATIVE ADVERTISING <a href="http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/policystmt/ad-compare.htm" title="ftc.gov">http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/policystmt/ad-compare.htm</a> [ftc.gov].</p><p>"The Commission has supported the use of brand comparisons where the bases of comparison are clearly identified. Comparative advertising, when truthful and non-deceptive, is a source of important information to consumers and assists them in making rational purchase decisions."</p><p>If the page "Clearly Identifies" the basis of the comparison, I don't see it.</p><p>And</p><p>"Some industry codes which prohibit practices such as "disparagement," "disparagement of competitors," "improper disparagement," "unfairly attacking," "discrediting," may operate as a restriction on comparative advertising. The Commission has previously held that disparaging advertising is permissible so long as it is truthful and not deceptive."</p><p>As many others have pointed out, several of the claims are, to put it generously, a stretch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Microsoft is over the line with this campaign from a legal standpoint and will get the smackdown from the FTC.Fromt the STATEMENT OF POLICY REGARDING COMPARATIVE ADVERTISING http : //www.ftc.gov/bcp/policystmt/ad-compare.htm [ ftc.gov ] .
" The Commission has supported the use of brand comparisons where the bases of comparison are clearly identified .
Comparative advertising , when truthful and non-deceptive , is a source of important information to consumers and assists them in making rational purchase decisions .
" If the page " Clearly Identifies " the basis of the comparison , I do n't see it.And " Some industry codes which prohibit practices such as " disparagement , " " disparagement of competitors , " " improper disparagement , " " unfairly attacking , " " discrediting , " may operate as a restriction on comparative advertising .
The Commission has previously held that disparaging advertising is permissible so long as it is truthful and not deceptive .
" As many others have pointed out , several of the claims are , to put it generously , a stretch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Microsoft is over the line with this campaign from a legal standpoint and will get the smackdown from the FTC.Fromt the STATEMENT OF POLICY REGARDING COMPARATIVE ADVERTISING http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/policystmt/ad-compare.htm [ftc.gov].
"The Commission has supported the use of brand comparisons where the bases of comparison are clearly identified.
Comparative advertising, when truthful and non-deceptive, is a source of important information to consumers and assists them in making rational purchase decisions.
"If the page "Clearly Identifies" the basis of the comparison, I don't see it.And"Some industry codes which prohibit practices such as "disparagement," "disparagement of competitors," "improper disparagement," "unfairly attacking," "discrediting," may operate as a restriction on comparative advertising.
The Commission has previously held that disparaging advertising is permissible so long as it is truthful and not deceptive.
"As many others have pointed out, several of the claims are, to put it generously, a stretch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28391721</id>
	<title>In other news,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245433860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/qu1j0t3/3638746920/" title="flickr.com">truly pathetic marketing campaign</a> [flickr.com] also precisely explains Microsoft's vision for an incompatible Internet, composed of "cleverly concealed web page[s] that only Internet Explorer 8 can view".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A truly pathetic marketing campaign [ flickr.com ] also precisely explains Microsoft 's vision for an incompatible Internet , composed of " cleverly concealed web page [ s ] that only Internet Explorer 8 can view " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A truly pathetic marketing campaign [flickr.com] also precisely explains Microsoft's vision for an incompatible Internet, composed of "cleverly concealed web page[s] that only Internet Explorer 8 can view".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28394305</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it...</title>
	<author>Your.Master</author>
	<datestamp>1245444000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First fact:  Sort of.  Trident is the WebBrowser control.  The rest of it can go.<br>Second fact:  You appear to be talking about Windows XP with regard to Windows Updates.  I know a lot of people here hate Vista, but, well, Vista and later don't do this, and one day most people aren't going to be using XP, and I don't think it's going to take all that long -- no more than two browser generations, I'm confident.  But yes, again, Trident is there for programs that use the Webbrowser control.  This seems like the same fact twice.<br>Third fact:  Wrong.  IE8 doesn't automatically replace earlier versions of IE.  You need to click through the installer screens.<br>Fourth fact:  Maybe.  I don't think anything is that certain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First fact : Sort of .
Trident is the WebBrowser control .
The rest of it can go.Second fact : You appear to be talking about Windows XP with regard to Windows Updates .
I know a lot of people here hate Vista , but , well , Vista and later do n't do this , and one day most people are n't going to be using XP , and I do n't think it 's going to take all that long -- no more than two browser generations , I 'm confident .
But yes , again , Trident is there for programs that use the Webbrowser control .
This seems like the same fact twice.Third fact : Wrong .
IE8 does n't automatically replace earlier versions of IE .
You need to click through the installer screens.Fourth fact : Maybe .
I do n't think anything is that certain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First fact:  Sort of.
Trident is the WebBrowser control.
The rest of it can go.Second fact:  You appear to be talking about Windows XP with regard to Windows Updates.
I know a lot of people here hate Vista, but, well, Vista and later don't do this, and one day most people aren't going to be using XP, and I don't think it's going to take all that long -- no more than two browser generations, I'm confident.
But yes, again, Trident is there for programs that use the Webbrowser control.
This seems like the same fact twice.Third fact:  Wrong.
IE8 doesn't automatically replace earlier versions of IE.
You need to click through the installer screens.Fourth fact:  Maybe.
I don't think anything is that certain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388237</id>
	<title>Who is the target audience?</title>
	<author>HangingChad</author>
	<datestamp>1245418860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who are they aiming at here?  Certainly not this group.  Definitely not developers.  Anyone in IT is going to get a good laugh.  It's just surreal.

</p><p>It's like this ad campaign was designed when the execs were baked.  It sounded good in the hot tub but when reality strikes, they discover that planning ad campaigns when you're high is a really bad idea.

</p><p>If there's some super sekret ad strategy at work here I'd sure like to know what it is, because it's hard to see it as anything but a massive waste of time and money.  I don't think most people even care and it reminds the development community how much they hate IE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who are they aiming at here ?
Certainly not this group .
Definitely not developers .
Anyone in IT is going to get a good laugh .
It 's just surreal .
It 's like this ad campaign was designed when the execs were baked .
It sounded good in the hot tub but when reality strikes , they discover that planning ad campaigns when you 're high is a really bad idea .
If there 's some super sekret ad strategy at work here I 'd sure like to know what it is , because it 's hard to see it as anything but a massive waste of time and money .
I do n't think most people even care and it reminds the development community how much they hate IE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who are they aiming at here?
Certainly not this group.
Definitely not developers.
Anyone in IT is going to get a good laugh.
It's just surreal.
It's like this ad campaign was designed when the execs were baked.
It sounded good in the hot tub but when reality strikes, they discover that planning ad campaigns when you're high is a really bad idea.
If there's some super sekret ad strategy at work here I'd sure like to know what it is, because it's hard to see it as anything but a massive waste of time and money.
I don't think most people even care and it reminds the development community how much they hate IE.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389213</id>
	<title>It depends upon what the definition of "get" is...</title>
	<author>wowbagger</author>
	<datestamp>1245423180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once again the problem is that we are parsing what Microsoft says as though it were English, when it is actually in MMS (Microsoft Marketing Speak), a language that, true to Microsoft form, is almost, but not quite, compatible.</p><p>In English, "get the facts" is parsed as "imperative: acquire possession of" "definitive article" "true information about the subject".</p><p>However, parsing this in MMS yields "destroy" (as in a mobster saying "This man has disrespected me: <b>get</b> him.") "subset: (inconvenient to us)" "true information about the subject".</p><p>An easy mistake to make.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once again the problem is that we are parsing what Microsoft says as though it were English , when it is actually in MMS ( Microsoft Marketing Speak ) , a language that , true to Microsoft form , is almost , but not quite , compatible.In English , " get the facts " is parsed as " imperative : acquire possession of " " definitive article " " true information about the subject " .However , parsing this in MMS yields " destroy " ( as in a mobster saying " This man has disrespected me : get him .
" ) " subset : ( inconvenient to us ) " " true information about the subject " .An easy mistake to make .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once again the problem is that we are parsing what Microsoft says as though it were English, when it is actually in MMS (Microsoft Marketing Speak), a language that, true to Microsoft form, is almost, but not quite, compatible.In English, "get the facts" is parsed as "imperative: acquire possession of" "definitive article" "true information about the subject".However, parsing this in MMS yields "destroy" (as in a mobster saying "This man has disrespected me: get him.
") "subset: (inconvenient to us)" "true information about the subject".An easy mistake to make.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28392081</id>
	<title>Re:Who is the target audience?</title>
	<author>RightSaidFred99</author>
	<datestamp>1245435540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You nerds crack me up.  Instead of using facts to base your arguments against IE8, which most of you dweebs haven't even tried, you just resort to "tribal knowledge".  Outdated, laughable tribal knowledge.  Oh, you just \_know\_ IE8 sucks.  Just like you "know" IIS7 sucks and Windows Vista sucks, and Windows Server 2008 sucks, etc... </p><p>Sorry, I don't form my opinions based on the the tribal knowledge of a bunch of tech dinosaurs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You nerds crack me up .
Instead of using facts to base your arguments against IE8 , which most of you dweebs have n't even tried , you just resort to " tribal knowledge " .
Outdated , laughable tribal knowledge .
Oh , you just \ _know \ _ IE8 sucks .
Just like you " know " IIS7 sucks and Windows Vista sucks , and Windows Server 2008 sucks , etc... Sorry , I do n't form my opinions based on the the tribal knowledge of a bunch of tech dinosaurs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You nerds crack me up.
Instead of using facts to base your arguments against IE8, which most of you dweebs haven't even tried, you just resort to "tribal knowledge".
Outdated, laughable tribal knowledge.
Oh, you just \_know\_ IE8 sucks.
Just like you "know" IIS7 sucks and Windows Vista sucks, and Windows Server 2008 sucks, etc... Sorry, I don't form my opinions based on the the tribal knowledge of a bunch of tech dinosaurs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388071</id>
	<title>Re:It's Too Late, I'm Done with IE</title>
	<author>Frank Dreben</author>
	<datestamp>1245417840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... This ridiculous campaign is just here to piss me off.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>It's all about you, isn't it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... This ridiculous campaign is just here to piss me off .
...It 's all about you , is n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... This ridiculous campaign is just here to piss me off.
...It's all about you, isn't it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388613</id>
	<title>Re:Sure...</title>
	<author>RobDude</author>
	<datestamp>1245420780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This post pretty much invalidates your opinion on all computer technology.</p><p>I don't mean this as an insult.  I'm just saying, if you think that's what happened; you are about as clueless as the stereotypical grandmother who doesn't understand the magic internet box.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This post pretty much invalidates your opinion on all computer technology.I do n't mean this as an insult .
I 'm just saying , if you think that 's what happened ; you are about as clueless as the stereotypical grandmother who does n't understand the magic internet box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This post pretty much invalidates your opinion on all computer technology.I don't mean this as an insult.
I'm just saying, if you think that's what happened; you are about as clueless as the stereotypical grandmother who doesn't understand the magic internet box.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28393989</id>
	<title>Re:The facts from Microsoft's point of view.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245442920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You neglected to mention that MS *could* be telling the truth. After all, you only need 10 of 11 trials to produce a 90.9\% success rate for something. So, if they cleverly used biased statistics (1,000 IE installs versus, say, 10 firefox), then they could easily come up with these "we're better" numbers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You neglected to mention that MS * could * be telling the truth .
After all , you only need 10 of 11 trials to produce a 90.9 \ % success rate for something .
So , if they cleverly used biased statistics ( 1,000 IE installs versus , say , 10 firefox ) , then they could easily come up with these " we 're better " numbers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You neglected to mention that MS *could* be telling the truth.
After all, you only need 10 of 11 trials to produce a 90.9\% success rate for something.
So, if they cleverly used biased statistics (1,000 IE installs versus, say, 10 firefox), then they could easily come up with these "we're better" numbers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28391185</id>
	<title>IE 8 doesn't exist</title>
	<author>mizzouxc</author>
	<datestamp>1245431640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't exist, so I won't use it.</p><p>lenny:~# apt-get install ie8<br>Reading package lists... Done<br>Building dependency tree<br>Reading state information... Done<br>E: Couldn't find package ie8</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't exist , so I wo n't use it.lenny : ~ # apt-get install ie8Reading package lists... DoneBuilding dependency treeReading state information... DoneE : Could n't find package ie8</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't exist, so I won't use it.lenny:~# apt-get install ie8Reading package lists... DoneBuilding dependency treeReading state information... DoneE: Couldn't find package ie8</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28392365</id>
	<title>Re:Victory at hand</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1245436620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, isn't it obvious? You just rename IE icon to "Firefox", and then tell him it's his Internet. ~</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , is n't it obvious ?
You just rename IE icon to " Firefox " , and then tell him it 's his Internet .
~</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, isn't it obvious?
You just rename IE icon to "Firefox", and then tell him it's his Internet.
~</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388479</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389815</id>
	<title>Too far?</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1245425760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know that even in commercials, companies are supposed to keep themselves to facts. If Microsoft goes too far with their lies, Google could very well sue them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know that even in commercials , companies are supposed to keep themselves to facts .
If Microsoft goes too far with their lies , Google could very well sue them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know that even in commercials, companies are supposed to keep themselves to facts.
If Microsoft goes too far with their lies, Google could very well sue them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387975</id>
	<title>"customizability" == "proprietary extensions"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245417180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Get the FUD" is more accurate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Get the FUD " is more accurate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Get the FUD" is more accurate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28395815</id>
	<title>This is relevant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245406140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mr. Mohra: So, I'm tendin' bar there at Ecklund and Swedlin's last Tuesday and this little guy's drinkin' and he says, "So where can a guy find some action? I'm goin' crazy out there at the lake." And I says, "What kinda action?" and he says, "Woman action, what do I look like?" And I says, "Well, what do I look like, I don't arrange that kinda thing," and he says, "I'm goin' crazy out there at the lake," and I says, "Well, this ain't that kinda place."<br>Officer Olson: Uh-huh.<br>Mr. Mohra: So he says, "So I get it, so you think I'm some kinda jerk for askin'," only he doesn't use the word jerk.<br>Officer Olson: I understand.<br>Mr. Mohra: And then he calls me a jerk and says the last guy who thought he was a jerk was dead now. So I don't say nothin' and he says, "What do ya think about that?" So I says, "Well, that don't sound like too good a deal for him then."<br>Officer Olson: Ya got that right.<br>Mr. Mohra: And he says, "Yah, that guy's dead and I don't mean of old age." And then he says, "Geez, I'm goin' crazy out there at the lake."<br>Officer Olson: White Bear Lake?<br>Mr. Mohra: Well, Ecklund &amp; Swedlin's, that's closer ta Moose Lake, so I made that assumption.<br>Officer Olson: Oh sure.<br>Mr. Mohra: So, ya know, he's drinkin', so I don't think a whole great deal of it, but Mrs. Mohra heard about the homicides down here and she thought I should call it in, so I called it in. End o' story.<br>Officer Olson: What'd this guy look like anyway?<br>Mr. Mohra: Oh, he was a little guy. Kinda funny lookin'.<br>Officer Olson: Uh-huh. In what way?<br>Mr. Mohra: Oh, just in a general kinda way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mr. Mohra : So , I 'm tendin ' bar there at Ecklund and Swedlin 's last Tuesday and this little guy 's drinkin ' and he says , " So where can a guy find some action ?
I 'm goin ' crazy out there at the lake .
" And I says , " What kinda action ?
" and he says , " Woman action , what do I look like ?
" And I says , " Well , what do I look like , I do n't arrange that kinda thing , " and he says , " I 'm goin ' crazy out there at the lake , " and I says , " Well , this ai n't that kinda place .
" Officer Olson : Uh-huh.Mr .
Mohra : So he says , " So I get it , so you think I 'm some kinda jerk for askin ' , " only he does n't use the word jerk.Officer Olson : I understand.Mr .
Mohra : And then he calls me a jerk and says the last guy who thought he was a jerk was dead now .
So I do n't say nothin ' and he says , " What do ya think about that ?
" So I says , " Well , that do n't sound like too good a deal for him then .
" Officer Olson : Ya got that right.Mr .
Mohra : And he says , " Yah , that guy 's dead and I do n't mean of old age .
" And then he says , " Geez , I 'm goin ' crazy out there at the lake .
" Officer Olson : White Bear Lake ? Mr .
Mohra : Well , Ecklund &amp; Swedlin 's , that 's closer ta Moose Lake , so I made that assumption.Officer Olson : Oh sure.Mr .
Mohra : So , ya know , he 's drinkin ' , so I do n't think a whole great deal of it , but Mrs. Mohra heard about the homicides down here and she thought I should call it in , so I called it in .
End o ' story.Officer Olson : What 'd this guy look like anyway ? Mr .
Mohra : Oh , he was a little guy .
Kinda funny lookin'.Officer Olson : Uh-huh .
In what way ? Mr .
Mohra : Oh , just in a general kinda way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mr. Mohra: So, I'm tendin' bar there at Ecklund and Swedlin's last Tuesday and this little guy's drinkin' and he says, "So where can a guy find some action?
I'm goin' crazy out there at the lake.
" And I says, "What kinda action?
" and he says, "Woman action, what do I look like?
" And I says, "Well, what do I look like, I don't arrange that kinda thing," and he says, "I'm goin' crazy out there at the lake," and I says, "Well, this ain't that kinda place.
"Officer Olson: Uh-huh.Mr.
Mohra: So he says, "So I get it, so you think I'm some kinda jerk for askin'," only he doesn't use the word jerk.Officer Olson: I understand.Mr.
Mohra: And then he calls me a jerk and says the last guy who thought he was a jerk was dead now.
So I don't say nothin' and he says, "What do ya think about that?
" So I says, "Well, that don't sound like too good a deal for him then.
"Officer Olson: Ya got that right.Mr.
Mohra: And he says, "Yah, that guy's dead and I don't mean of old age.
" And then he says, "Geez, I'm goin' crazy out there at the lake.
"Officer Olson: White Bear Lake?Mr.
Mohra: Well, Ecklund &amp; Swedlin's, that's closer ta Moose Lake, so I made that assumption.Officer Olson: Oh sure.Mr.
Mohra: So, ya know, he's drinkin', so I don't think a whole great deal of it, but Mrs. Mohra heard about the homicides down here and she thought I should call it in, so I called it in.
End o' story.Officer Olson: What'd this guy look like anyway?Mr.
Mohra: Oh, he was a little guy.
Kinda funny lookin'.Officer Olson: Uh-huh.
In what way?Mr.
Mohra: Oh, just in a general kinda way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388713</id>
	<title>"Myth" with only actual fact on the site!</title>
	<author>thijsh</author>
	<datestamp>1245421140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Myth #2: Internet Explorer is less secure than Firefox.<br>
The Real Deal: Research proves that Internet Explorer 8 <b>catches almost twice as much malware</b> than the competition. That's "less secure?"</p></div><p>I guess they're talking about 'catching' in the sense of <i>catching an STD</i>...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Myth # 2 : Internet Explorer is less secure than Firefox .
The Real Deal : Research proves that Internet Explorer 8 catches almost twice as much malware than the competition .
That 's " less secure ?
" I guess they 're talking about 'catching ' in the sense of catching an STD.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Myth #2: Internet Explorer is less secure than Firefox.
The Real Deal: Research proves that Internet Explorer 8 catches almost twice as much malware than the competition.
That's "less secure?
"I guess they're talking about 'catching' in the sense of catching an STD...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389065</id>
	<title>At least they make fun of themselves..</title>
	<author>SchizoDuckie</author>
	<datestamp>1245422700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the "What's the buzz" section on their own site:<blockquote><div><p>Internet Explorer 8 breaks the mold with what may be the best written privacy policy for any software product ever.</p></div></blockquote><p> <i> Brier Dudley, Seattle Times</i></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the " What 's the buzz " section on their own site : Internet Explorer 8 breaks the mold with what may be the best written privacy policy for any software product ever .
Brier Dudley , Seattle Times</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the "What's the buzz" section on their own site:Internet Explorer 8 breaks the mold with what may be the best written privacy policy for any software product ever.
Brier Dudley, Seattle Times
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387885
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28391903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28393417
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389553
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387925
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28393989
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389933
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28393077
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28390965
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28395065
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389547
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28392381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28396429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28392717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28390809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389027
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387885
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28395559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388597
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28391037
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28392365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28394305
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28391129
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388527
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28392077
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28390207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387885
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388849
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28391727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28391713
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28392127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389221
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28390839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387925
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28394323
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389045
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387885
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389647
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388803
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28391373
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28391817
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28390715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387885
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388969
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389287
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387885
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28396615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28391149
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28396297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388043
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28391303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388987
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28394581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28390975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388577
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28391523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28390857
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28390551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28391783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28397305
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388203
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389215
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388203
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388655
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388447
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28392277
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28444259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28392081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389393
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388833
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28398031
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389067
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389535
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28391109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28391269
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389061
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28390189
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28390605
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_033241_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28391509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_033241.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389957
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28396615
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_033241.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387891
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389647
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388527
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389393
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389933
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_033241.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388381
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28391149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389009
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28396429
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_033241.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388317
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28392077
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28390715
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389535
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389427
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388877
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_033241.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387843
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388051
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388447
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388577
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388203
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388655
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389215
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388043
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388071
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389511
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388285
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388031
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389539
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28391523
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389067
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28390605
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388427
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28398031
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388803
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28391373
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388475
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28394581
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389257
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389547
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_033241.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28391721
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_033241.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28396297
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28394305
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_033241.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388919
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_033241.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389815
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_033241.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28399253
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_033241.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387925
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389109
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28393989
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_033241.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388313
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_033241.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28394745
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_033241.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388021
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388785
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28390857
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388459
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_033241.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388047
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_033241.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388197
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28391817
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28392277
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28393077
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28444259
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_033241.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387975
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_033241.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388129
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_033241.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388583
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389777
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_033241.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388359
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_033241.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28391109
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28390839
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28392081
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_033241.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389021
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_033241.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28391783
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28397305
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_033241.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387841
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388613
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_033241.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387987
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_033241.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387885
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388849
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388969
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388263
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389025
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28391903
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388539
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389313
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_033241.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387917
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389061
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388987
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_033241.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388619
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_033241.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388971
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_033241.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388181
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_033241.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28400623
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_033241.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387839
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388729
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28390207
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389111
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28391269
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28394323
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389287
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389419
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28392717
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28391129
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28391037
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28391727
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28391713
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28393417
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389553
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28390551
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28391509
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28390189
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389027
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28395559
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28392127
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389045
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28391303
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28390965
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28395065
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389221
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388597
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388833
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388797
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28390809
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_033241.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388479
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28392365
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_033241.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388045
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388465
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28390975
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_033241.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28387927
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388501
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388409
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_033241.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28388599
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28392381
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_033241.28389075
</commentlist>
</conversation>
