<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_30_1353240</id>
	<title>Firefox 3.5 Reviewed; Draws Praise For HTML5, Speed</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1246371660000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:john.d.martin.iii@gmail.com" rel="nofollow">johndmartiniii</a> writes <i>"Farhad Manjoo has a <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2221756/">review of Firefox 3.5</a> at Slate.com this week. From the article: 'Lately I've been worried about Firefox. Ever since its debut in 2004, the open-source Web browser has won acclaim for its speed, stability, and customizability. It eventually captured nearly a quarter of the market, an astonishing achievement for a project run by a nonprofit foundation. But recently Firefox seemed to go soft.' The worried tone in the beginning of the review gives way to excitement over the HTML5 features being implemented, saying that thus far Firefox 3.5 'offers the best implementation of the standard &mdash; and because it's the second-most-popular Web browser in the world, the new release is sure to prompt Web designers to create pages tailored to the Web's new language.'"</i> The final version could be here at any time; Firefox 3.5 is still shown as a release candidate at Mozilla's home page. <b>Update: 06/30 15:31 GMT</b> by <b> <a href="http://www.monkey.org/~timothy/">T</a> </b>: No longer marked as RC; the <a href="http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/upgrade.html">Firefox upgrade page</a> now says 3.5 has arrived.</htmltext>
<tokenext>johndmartiniii writes " Farhad Manjoo has a review of Firefox 3.5 at Slate.com this week .
From the article : 'Lately I 've been worried about Firefox .
Ever since its debut in 2004 , the open-source Web browser has won acclaim for its speed , stability , and customizability .
It eventually captured nearly a quarter of the market , an astonishing achievement for a project run by a nonprofit foundation .
But recently Firefox seemed to go soft .
' The worried tone in the beginning of the review gives way to excitement over the HTML5 features being implemented , saying that thus far Firefox 3.5 'offers the best implementation of the standard    and because it 's the second-most-popular Web browser in the world , the new release is sure to prompt Web designers to create pages tailored to the Web 's new language .
' " The final version could be here at any time ; Firefox 3.5 is still shown as a release candidate at Mozilla 's home page .
Update : 06/30 15 : 31 GMT by T : No longer marked as RC ; the Firefox upgrade page now says 3.5 has arrived .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>johndmartiniii writes "Farhad Manjoo has a review of Firefox 3.5 at Slate.com this week.
From the article: 'Lately I've been worried about Firefox.
Ever since its debut in 2004, the open-source Web browser has won acclaim for its speed, stability, and customizability.
It eventually captured nearly a quarter of the market, an astonishing achievement for a project run by a nonprofit foundation.
But recently Firefox seemed to go soft.
' The worried tone in the beginning of the review gives way to excitement over the HTML5 features being implemented, saying that thus far Firefox 3.5 'offers the best implementation of the standard — and because it's the second-most-popular Web browser in the world, the new release is sure to prompt Web designers to create pages tailored to the Web's new language.
'" The final version could be here at any time; Firefox 3.5 is still shown as a release candidate at Mozilla's home page.
Update: 06/30 15:31 GMT by  T : No longer marked as RC; the Firefox upgrade page now says 3.5 has arrived.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528497</id>
	<title>Re:I hope they fixed printing</title>
	<author>pdboddy</author>
	<datestamp>1246377420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nope, I don't get this behavior either.<br> <br>Have you checked that off in your default printer settings?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope , I do n't get this behavior either .
Have you checked that off in your default printer settings ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope, I don't get this behavior either.
Have you checked that off in your default printer settings?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28532535</id>
	<title>Realtime download statistics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246390200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mozilla's also put up a page that tracks downloads in real time, plotting their location on a map as well as maintaining running totals.  As of this posting, Firefox 3.5 was already over 1 million downloads worldwide.  See <a href="http://downloadstats.mozilla.com/" title="mozilla.com" rel="nofollow">http://downloadstats.mozilla.com/</a> [mozilla.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mozilla 's also put up a page that tracks downloads in real time , plotting their location on a map as well as maintaining running totals .
As of this posting , Firefox 3.5 was already over 1 million downloads worldwide .
See http : //downloadstats.mozilla.com/ [ mozilla.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mozilla's also put up a page that tracks downloads in real time, plotting their location on a map as well as maintaining running totals.
As of this posting, Firefox 3.5 was already over 1 million downloads worldwide.
See http://downloadstats.mozilla.com/ [mozilla.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528003</id>
	<title>As usual with new Firefox releases...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246375560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The main thing i want to know is if they've (finally) fixed the memory issues yet. Namely, if i keep a lot of tabs open for awhile (yes, i know, bad habit) and then close those tabs, will Firefox free up the memory (frequently over a gig of it) without requiring me to shut it down and restart it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The main thing i want to know is if they 've ( finally ) fixed the memory issues yet .
Namely , if i keep a lot of tabs open for awhile ( yes , i know , bad habit ) and then close those tabs , will Firefox free up the memory ( frequently over a gig of it ) without requiring me to shut it down and restart it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main thing i want to know is if they've (finally) fixed the memory issues yet.
Namely, if i keep a lot of tabs open for awhile (yes, i know, bad habit) and then close those tabs, will Firefox free up the memory (frequently over a gig of it) without requiring me to shut it down and restart it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28535533</id>
	<title>The real bug is that FF uses SQLite</title>
	<author>knorthern knight</author>
	<datestamp>1246360380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The root cause of the problem is that FF uses SQLite.  Real databases (even "Lite" versions), are paranoid about file integrity, and therefore do file commits via fsync(), or whatever, almost every time they do file writes.  The FF developers brought this on themselves when they included SQLite as an integral part of Firefox. This is a browser, not a database, folks.  Why the bleep does it need an SQL database?  And how long before the Russian Business Network starts running SQL injection attacks against Firefox?</p><p>I remember several years ago, when the browser was called Mozilla 0.95.  Besides a browser, it had email and usenet news and web development tools and it was big/bloated/slow, and people were making "about:kitchen sink" jokes.  Firefox was forked out of Mozilla and presented as the lightweight lean-and-mean *WEB BROWSER* that people really wanted.  I think it's time for another such fork.  Firefox is an OK operating system, but it lacks a lightweight web browser.</p><p>I'm not a programmer, but if I had a team of programmers reporting to me, and a budget to pay them with, I'd start a Firefox fork.  First to go would be SQLite, and I'd revert "abortion bar" to the previous Firefox behaviour.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The root cause of the problem is that FF uses SQLite .
Real databases ( even " Lite " versions ) , are paranoid about file integrity , and therefore do file commits via fsync ( ) , or whatever , almost every time they do file writes .
The FF developers brought this on themselves when they included SQLite as an integral part of Firefox .
This is a browser , not a database , folks .
Why the bleep does it need an SQL database ?
And how long before the Russian Business Network starts running SQL injection attacks against Firefox ? I remember several years ago , when the browser was called Mozilla 0.95 .
Besides a browser , it had email and usenet news and web development tools and it was big/bloated/slow , and people were making " about : kitchen sink " jokes .
Firefox was forked out of Mozilla and presented as the lightweight lean-and-mean * WEB BROWSER * that people really wanted .
I think it 's time for another such fork .
Firefox is an OK operating system , but it lacks a lightweight web browser.I 'm not a programmer , but if I had a team of programmers reporting to me , and a budget to pay them with , I 'd start a Firefox fork .
First to go would be SQLite , and I 'd revert " abortion bar " to the previous Firefox behaviour .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The root cause of the problem is that FF uses SQLite.
Real databases (even "Lite" versions), are paranoid about file integrity, and therefore do file commits via fsync(), or whatever, almost every time they do file writes.
The FF developers brought this on themselves when they included SQLite as an integral part of Firefox.
This is a browser, not a database, folks.
Why the bleep does it need an SQL database?
And how long before the Russian Business Network starts running SQL injection attacks against Firefox?I remember several years ago, when the browser was called Mozilla 0.95.
Besides a browser, it had email and usenet news and web development tools and it was big/bloated/slow, and people were making "about:kitchen sink" jokes.
Firefox was forked out of Mozilla and presented as the lightweight lean-and-mean *WEB BROWSER* that people really wanted.
I think it's time for another such fork.
Firefox is an OK operating system, but it lacks a lightweight web browser.I'm not a programmer, but if I had a team of programmers reporting to me, and a budget to pay them with, I'd start a Firefox fork.
First to go would be SQLite, and I'd revert "abortion bar" to the previous Firefox behaviour.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28535475</id>
	<title>Re:Competition</title>
	<author>Trillan</author>
	<datestamp>1246360080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Mozilla Foundation created the Mozilla Suite. Firefox was the creation of Dave Hyatt and Blake Ross. If you have evidence that the Mozilla Foundation made a choice to adopt Firefox prior to it eating the Suite's lunch, I'd love to hear it. But even then, "create" is too strong a word.</p><p>And so it's probably more accurate to call Firefox a success in spite of Mozilla Foundation's best efforts. Any multiplicity of real competition is in spite of Mozilla Foundation, not because of. Calling it a great success of the Mozilla Foundation is just a step too far for credibility.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Mozilla Foundation created the Mozilla Suite .
Firefox was the creation of Dave Hyatt and Blake Ross .
If you have evidence that the Mozilla Foundation made a choice to adopt Firefox prior to it eating the Suite 's lunch , I 'd love to hear it .
But even then , " create " is too strong a word.And so it 's probably more accurate to call Firefox a success in spite of Mozilla Foundation 's best efforts .
Any multiplicity of real competition is in spite of Mozilla Foundation , not because of .
Calling it a great success of the Mozilla Foundation is just a step too far for credibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Mozilla Foundation created the Mozilla Suite.
Firefox was the creation of Dave Hyatt and Blake Ross.
If you have evidence that the Mozilla Foundation made a choice to adopt Firefox prior to it eating the Suite's lunch, I'd love to hear it.
But even then, "create" is too strong a word.And so it's probably more accurate to call Firefox a success in spite of Mozilla Foundation's best efforts.
Any multiplicity of real competition is in spite of Mozilla Foundation, not because of.
Calling it a great success of the Mozilla Foundation is just a step too far for credibility.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28546851</id>
	<title>Re:HTML 5 and Javascript</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1246477320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Will Flash videos play if I don't have Adobe's thrice-becursed annoying crash-happy proprietary plugin installed?<br><br>Oops!  Oh, well.<br><br>(I still don't understand what's wrong with just linking to an MPEG and letting the user's operating system decide what software to use to play it.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will Flash videos play if I do n't have Adobe 's thrice-becursed annoying crash-happy proprietary plugin installed ? Oops !
Oh , well .
( I still do n't understand what 's wrong with just linking to an MPEG and letting the user 's operating system decide what software to use to play it .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will Flash videos play if I don't have Adobe's thrice-becursed annoying crash-happy proprietary plugin installed?Oops!
Oh, well.
(I still don't understand what's wrong with just linking to an MPEG and letting the user's operating system decide what software to use to play it.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530909</id>
	<title>Re:A Bug No One Mentions</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1246384920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem is that if they're polite and fix that, then they open themselves up to that other nastiness - "Oh, no, I crashed and my settings are gone!" which you might recall from ext4 discussions a few months ago here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that if they 're polite and fix that , then they open themselves up to that other nastiness - " Oh , no , I crashed and my settings are gone !
" which you might recall from ext4 discussions a few months ago here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that if they're polite and fix that, then they open themselves up to that other nastiness - "Oh, no, I crashed and my settings are gone!
" which you might recall from ext4 discussions a few months ago here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530817</id>
	<title>Re:Competition</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1246384740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Am I the only one who doesn't see the multiplicity of real competition as a threat, but rather as the greatest success of the Mozilla Foundation?</p></div><p>Huh? Is there somebody out there yelling, "No! We need <i>one</i> browser! Competition is evil"? If so, I haven't run across them.</p><p>With browsers (as with any other software) there's always some obsessive fanboy who says that everybody should be using Firefox or Opera or even <a href="http://lynx.isc.org/" title="isc.org">Lynx</a> [isc.org]. But that just religious non-logic; it's not an argument against competition.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one who does n't see the multiplicity of real competition as a threat , but rather as the greatest success of the Mozilla Foundation ? Huh ?
Is there somebody out there yelling , " No !
We need one browser !
Competition is evil " ?
If so , I have n't run across them.With browsers ( as with any other software ) there 's always some obsessive fanboy who says that everybody should be using Firefox or Opera or even Lynx [ isc.org ] .
But that just religious non-logic ; it 's not an argument against competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one who doesn't see the multiplicity of real competition as a threat, but rather as the greatest success of the Mozilla Foundation?Huh?
Is there somebody out there yelling, "No!
We need one browser!
Competition is evil"?
If so, I haven't run across them.With browsers (as with any other software) there's always some obsessive fanboy who says that everybody should be using Firefox or Opera or even Lynx [isc.org].
But that just religious non-logic; it's not an argument against competition.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528171</id>
	<title>Truth Filter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246376160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I ran the title through a truth filter, this is what I got:<br> <br>

Firefox 3.5 Reviewed; Draws Praise For not being made by Microsoft, Google</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ran the title through a truth filter , this is what I got : Firefox 3.5 Reviewed ; Draws Praise For not being made by Microsoft , Google</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I ran the title through a truth filter, this is what I got: 

Firefox 3.5 Reviewed; Draws Praise For not being made by Microsoft, Google</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528893</id>
	<title>Re:Non-profit?</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1246378920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not technically true, it's completely true. Don't the Mozilla foundation have tax exempt status?<br> <br>

All non-profits have to make enough money in one way or another to fund operations, after all people can't generally afford to work for free and suppliers expect compensation for their supplies. Google would be in a world of hurt if it clamped down on Mozilla as that would definitely trigger a swift DoJ investigation into anti-trust violations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not technically true , it 's completely true .
Do n't the Mozilla foundation have tax exempt status ?
All non-profits have to make enough money in one way or another to fund operations , after all people ca n't generally afford to work for free and suppliers expect compensation for their supplies .
Google would be in a world of hurt if it clamped down on Mozilla as that would definitely trigger a swift DoJ investigation into anti-trust violations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not technically true, it's completely true.
Don't the Mozilla foundation have tax exempt status?
All non-profits have to make enough money in one way or another to fund operations, after all people can't generally afford to work for free and suppliers expect compensation for their supplies.
Google would be in a world of hurt if it clamped down on Mozilla as that would definitely trigger a swift DoJ investigation into anti-trust violations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528253</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28534945</id>
	<title>I modded you down.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246357080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because of the stupid things you said here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1285879&amp;cid=28516073</p><blockquote><div><p>Things like Guantanamo Bay, the Iraq War, this TSA bullshit and countless others simply do not happen in other countries.</p></div></blockquote><p>ORLY?</p><p>Note to moderators: don't worry about "unfair" metamoderations if you're interested in following this guy around and lowering his karma- I've been doing stuff like this for <i>years</i> and I always get mod points ^\_^</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because of the stupid things you said here : http : //slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1285879&amp;cid = 28516073Things like Guantanamo Bay , the Iraq War , this TSA bullshit and countless others simply do not happen in other countries.ORLY ? Note to moderators : do n't worry about " unfair " metamoderations if you 're interested in following this guy around and lowering his karma- I 've been doing stuff like this for years and I always get mod points ^ \ _ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because of the stupid things you said here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1285879&amp;cid=28516073Things like Guantanamo Bay, the Iraq War, this TSA bullshit and countless others simply do not happen in other countries.ORLY?Note to moderators: don't worry about "unfair" metamoderations if you're interested in following this guy around and lowering his karma- I've been doing stuff like this for years and I always get mod points ^\_^
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528757</id>
	<title>Re:Real geeks</title>
	<author>garaged</author>
	<datestamp>1246378380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>genius laught at kids using netcat for web when they can use lynx -dump to actually get somethin done</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>genius laught at kids using netcat for web when they can use lynx -dump to actually get somethin done</tokentext>
<sentencetext>genius laught at kids using netcat for web when they can use lynx -dump to actually get somethin done</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528297</id>
	<title>A Bug No One Mentions</title>
	<author>DirePickle</author>
	<datestamp>1246376700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did they ever resolve <a href="https://bugs.launchpad.net/firefox/+bug/221009" title="launchpad.net">this</a> [launchpad.net]? It's still present in 3.0 for Linux. Basically, instead of being polite and letting the OS keep the disk spun down until data <i>needs</i> to be written, Firefox spins up the HD for writing <i>every single time</i> it does anything. So if you have an aggressive spin-down policy (like Ubuntu Jaunty does, at least) and you're web-browsing, your HD will spin up and down every twenty seconds or so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did they ever resolve this [ launchpad.net ] ?
It 's still present in 3.0 for Linux .
Basically , instead of being polite and letting the OS keep the disk spun down until data needs to be written , Firefox spins up the HD for writing every single time it does anything .
So if you have an aggressive spin-down policy ( like Ubuntu Jaunty does , at least ) and you 're web-browsing , your HD will spin up and down every twenty seconds or so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did they ever resolve this [launchpad.net]?
It's still present in 3.0 for Linux.
Basically, instead of being polite and letting the OS keep the disk spun down until data needs to be written, Firefox spins up the HD for writing every single time it does anything.
So if you have an aggressive spin-down policy (like Ubuntu Jaunty does, at least) and you're web-browsing, your HD will spin up and down every twenty seconds or so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528767</id>
	<title>Re:Released!?!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246378440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems someone updated the Image to Firefox 3.5, but it still links to 3.0.11</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems someone updated the Image to Firefox 3.5 , but it still links to 3.0.11</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems someone updated the Image to Firefox 3.5, but it still links to 3.0.11</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528605</id>
	<title>Acid</title>
	<author>Pahroza</author>
	<datestamp>1246377780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Still only a 93\% on acid3.  Better, but not good enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Still only a 93 \ % on acid3 .
Better , but not good enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Still only a 93\% on acid3.
Better, but not good enough.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528933</id>
	<title>video tag</title>
	<author>FunkyELF</author>
	<datestamp>1246379100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I saw some of the stuff they do with the video tag and tried it out on my machine. <a href="http://people.mozilla.com/~prouget/demos/" title="mozilla.com">http://people.mozilla.com/~prouget/demos/</a> [mozilla.com] <br>
<br>
It seems like they are encouraging doing elaborate things with this tag.  I'm hoping that this won't escalate into what we have now with flash.<br>
Even if it isn't as much of a resource hog for playing video, once people start rotating / clipping 20 videos on a single page it'll bring your system down.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I saw some of the stuff they do with the video tag and tried it out on my machine .
http : //people.mozilla.com/ ~ prouget/demos/ [ mozilla.com ] It seems like they are encouraging doing elaborate things with this tag .
I 'm hoping that this wo n't escalate into what we have now with flash .
Even if it is n't as much of a resource hog for playing video , once people start rotating / clipping 20 videos on a single page it 'll bring your system down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I saw some of the stuff they do with the video tag and tried it out on my machine.
http://people.mozilla.com/~prouget/demos/ [mozilla.com] 

It seems like they are encouraging doing elaborate things with this tag.
I'm hoping that this won't escalate into what we have now with flash.
Even if it isn't as much of a resource hog for playing video, once people start rotating / clipping 20 videos on a single page it'll bring your system down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528393</id>
	<title>Released!?!!</title>
	<author>ericlondaits</author>
	<datestamp>1246377060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As of now, if you got to Mozilla's page and choose to download Firefox, you get version 3.5 :</p><p><a href="http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/upgrade.html" title="mozilla.com">http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/upgrade.html</a> [mozilla.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As of now , if you got to Mozilla 's page and choose to download Firefox , you get version 3.5 : http : //www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/upgrade.html [ mozilla.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As of now, if you got to Mozilla's page and choose to download Firefox, you get version 3.5 :http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/upgrade.html [mozilla.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529817</id>
	<title>What is a browser?</title>
	<author>Bragador</author>
	<datestamp>1246382040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not sure my title will make enough people read this but not a lot of people know that they even own an Internet browser. Simply watch this real and pathetic investigation <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3vv0\_RNTM8" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3vv0\_RNTM8</a> [youtube.com] . I'm dead serious, we live in our own world...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure my title will make enough people read this but not a lot of people know that they even own an Internet browser .
Simply watch this real and pathetic investigation http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = W3vv0 \ _RNTM8 [ youtube.com ] .
I 'm dead serious , we live in our own world.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure my title will make enough people read this but not a lot of people know that they even own an Internet browser.
Simply watch this real and pathetic investigation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3vv0\_RNTM8 [youtube.com] .
I'm dead serious, we live in our own world...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529123</id>
	<title>Re:I hope they fixed printing</title>
	<author>uberdilligaff</author>
	<datestamp>1246379760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For me, 3.0.11 defaults to the last printer I used, which could be my default printer, but often isn't.  I find this convenient and I like it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For me , 3.0.11 defaults to the last printer I used , which could be my default printer , but often is n't .
I find this convenient and I like it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For me, 3.0.11 defaults to the last printer I used, which could be my default printer, but often isn't.
I find this convenient and I like it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528337</id>
	<title>But...what happened to Beta 4?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246376820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to the <a href="https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox3.5/Schedule" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">official working schedule</a> [mozilla.org], FF3.5b4 is going to be coming out in the near future--on April 24.</p><p>Some may have noticed that April 24 (and 3.5b4) has already passed. I find it sadly ironic that the weekly FF3.5 meetings have talked about branding, evangelizing, and marketing; and yet they can't be bothered to update their own schedule.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the official working schedule [ mozilla.org ] , FF3.5b4 is going to be coming out in the near future--on April 24.Some may have noticed that April 24 ( and 3.5b4 ) has already passed .
I find it sadly ironic that the weekly FF3.5 meetings have talked about branding , evangelizing , and marketing ; and yet they ca n't be bothered to update their own schedule .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the official working schedule [mozilla.org], FF3.5b4 is going to be coming out in the near future--on April 24.Some may have noticed that April 24 (and 3.5b4) has already passed.
I find it sadly ironic that the weekly FF3.5 meetings have talked about branding, evangelizing, and marketing; and yet they can't be bothered to update their own schedule.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530889</id>
	<title>Re:still using iCab ;-)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246384860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to really enjoy using it, but it fell behind with regards to the Webkit based browsers.  I use Omniweb when I'm on my Mac now.  But I see that iCab has been re-written in Cocoa/Webkit.  I will have to re-visit it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to really enjoy using it , but it fell behind with regards to the Webkit based browsers .
I use Omniweb when I 'm on my Mac now .
But I see that iCab has been re-written in Cocoa/Webkit .
I will have to re-visit it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to really enjoy using it, but it fell behind with regards to the Webkit based browsers.
I use Omniweb when I'm on my Mac now.
But I see that iCab has been re-written in Cocoa/Webkit.
I will have to re-visit it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528329</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528681</id>
	<title>Re:A Bug No One Mentions</title>
	<author>0123456</author>
	<datestamp>1246378020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Basically, instead of being polite and letting the OS keep the disk spun down until data <i>needs</i> to be written, Firefox spins up the HD for writing <i>every single time</i> it does anything.</p></div><p>But this isn't a bug, it's a feature: the ext4 developers keep telling us that Posix requires that you fsync() any file that you actually want to find on the disk after a reboot.</p><p>More seriously, this may be a response to the earlier problems on Windows where you would reboot after a system crash or power outage and find all your bookmarks had been eaten by scandisk because they weren't properly written to disk before the crash.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically , instead of being polite and letting the OS keep the disk spun down until data needs to be written , Firefox spins up the HD for writing every single time it does anything.But this is n't a bug , it 's a feature : the ext4 developers keep telling us that Posix requires that you fsync ( ) any file that you actually want to find on the disk after a reboot.More seriously , this may be a response to the earlier problems on Windows where you would reboot after a system crash or power outage and find all your bookmarks had been eaten by scandisk because they were n't properly written to disk before the crash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically, instead of being polite and letting the OS keep the disk spun down until data needs to be written, Firefox spins up the HD for writing every single time it does anything.But this isn't a bug, it's a feature: the ext4 developers keep telling us that Posix requires that you fsync() any file that you actually want to find on the disk after a reboot.More seriously, this may be a response to the earlier problems on Windows where you would reboot after a system crash or power outage and find all your bookmarks had been eaten by scandisk because they weren't properly written to disk before the crash.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528335</id>
	<title>RMS</title>
	<author>koreaman</author>
	<datestamp>1246376820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm trying to decide if that's more or less hardcore than using wget like Richard Stallman does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm trying to decide if that 's more or less hardcore than using wget like Richard Stallman does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm trying to decide if that's more or less hardcore than using wget like Richard Stallman does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28531273</id>
	<title>Re:Competition</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246386000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, you're not the only person who thinks competition is good for end-users. It's basic economics. Are you arrogant or just karma-whoring?</p><p>"a few people who paid way too much for their computers would be running Safari"</p><p>Arrogant. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , you 're not the only person who thinks competition is good for end-users .
It 's basic economics .
Are you arrogant or just karma-whoring ?
" a few people who paid way too much for their computers would be running Safari " Arrogant .
Got it .
Thanks for clearing that up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, you're not the only person who thinks competition is good for end-users.
It's basic economics.
Are you arrogant or just karma-whoring?
"a few people who paid way too much for their computers would be running Safari"Arrogant.
Got it.
Thanks for clearing that up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528321</id>
	<title>Actually, REAL geeks ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246376760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://lwn.net/Articles/262570/" title="lwn.net">... send mail to a demon which runs wget and mails the page back</a> [lwn.net].</htmltext>
<tokenext>... send mail to a demon which runs wget and mails the page back [ lwn.net ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... send mail to a demon which runs wget and mails the page back [lwn.net].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28546717</id>
	<title>Re:Explain to me again why this is not Evil</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1246476840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah.<br><br>Personally I think HTML5 is fundamentally a move in the wrong direction.  Does anybody really want to go back to non-wellformed markup?  What a PAIN, \_especially\_ if you're composing a page dynamically including some user-supplied components and want to check that said components can't screw up the whole page in deviously egregious ways.  With legacy SGML malarke, you pretty much have to build a complete parser into your code.  With XHTML, you can check for basic well-formedness in about six lines of Perl.  (This doesn't guarantee validity, but if you're serving as text/html that really doesn't matter.  It *does* guarantee that the user-supplied content can't close out the containing elements and diddle around in the rest of the page, among other things.)  Having realized the benefits of wellformed markup, why would we EVER want to go back?  No thanks.<br><br>And then there's XHTML2, which appears to want to change as many things as possible, just for the sake of it.  Meh.<br><br>The only thing I really want in a new version of HTML is the ability to put block-level elements within paragraphs.  That's all I want.  Add that to XHTML 1.0, call the result XHTML 1.0.1, and I'm good.  Seriously.<br><br>Video?  I still don't understand what's wrong with just linking to an MPEG and letting the operating system decide what software to use to play it.  That's worked very well on every major operating system since 1994 and, if the user has decent video-playback software installed, provides a MUCH better UI than any of the in-browser video playing schemes I've ever seen, including this new one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah.Personally I think HTML5 is fundamentally a move in the wrong direction .
Does anybody really want to go back to non-wellformed markup ?
What a PAIN , \ _especially \ _ if you 're composing a page dynamically including some user-supplied components and want to check that said components ca n't screw up the whole page in deviously egregious ways .
With legacy SGML malarke , you pretty much have to build a complete parser into your code .
With XHTML , you can check for basic well-formedness in about six lines of Perl .
( This does n't guarantee validity , but if you 're serving as text/html that really does n't matter .
It * does * guarantee that the user-supplied content ca n't close out the containing elements and diddle around in the rest of the page , among other things .
) Having realized the benefits of wellformed markup , why would we EVER want to go back ?
No thanks.And then there 's XHTML2 , which appears to want to change as many things as possible , just for the sake of it .
Meh.The only thing I really want in a new version of HTML is the ability to put block-level elements within paragraphs .
That 's all I want .
Add that to XHTML 1.0 , call the result XHTML 1.0.1 , and I 'm good .
Seriously.Video ? I still do n't understand what 's wrong with just linking to an MPEG and letting the operating system decide what software to use to play it .
That 's worked very well on every major operating system since 1994 and , if the user has decent video-playback software installed , provides a MUCH better UI than any of the in-browser video playing schemes I 've ever seen , including this new one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah.Personally I think HTML5 is fundamentally a move in the wrong direction.
Does anybody really want to go back to non-wellformed markup?
What a PAIN, \_especially\_ if you're composing a page dynamically including some user-supplied components and want to check that said components can't screw up the whole page in deviously egregious ways.
With legacy SGML malarke, you pretty much have to build a complete parser into your code.
With XHTML, you can check for basic well-formedness in about six lines of Perl.
(This doesn't guarantee validity, but if you're serving as text/html that really doesn't matter.
It *does* guarantee that the user-supplied content can't close out the containing elements and diddle around in the rest of the page, among other things.
)  Having realized the benefits of wellformed markup, why would we EVER want to go back?
No thanks.And then there's XHTML2, which appears to want to change as many things as possible, just for the sake of it.
Meh.The only thing I really want in a new version of HTML is the ability to put block-level elements within paragraphs.
That's all I want.
Add that to XHTML 1.0, call the result XHTML 1.0.1, and I'm good.
Seriously.Video?  I still don't understand what's wrong with just linking to an MPEG and letting the operating system decide what software to use to play it.
That's worked very well on every major operating system since 1994 and, if the user has decent video-playback software installed, provides a MUCH better UI than any of the in-browser video playing schemes I've ever seen, including this new one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529371</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28546797</id>
	<title>Re:Explain to me again why this is not Evil</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1246477140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; Microsoft implemented a version of those standards before they were standards,<br>&gt; and became the Defacto Quirks Mode way things were done for a long time,<br><br>You left out the middle steps, wherein the standards were officially released, and Microsoft categorically refused to update its implementation for roughly a decade.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Microsoft implemented a version of those standards before they were standards , &gt; and became the Defacto Quirks Mode way things were done for a long time,You left out the middle steps , wherein the standards were officially released , and Microsoft categorically refused to update its implementation for roughly a decade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Microsoft implemented a version of those standards before they were standards,&gt; and became the Defacto Quirks Mode way things were done for a long time,You left out the middle steps, wherein the standards were officially released, and Microsoft categorically refused to update its implementation for roughly a decade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529371</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528631</id>
	<title>Here now</title>
	<author>rjolley</author>
	<datestamp>1246377840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think firefox 3.5 IS here now.  I just went to getfirefox.com on osx and ubuntu and both show graphical links to download firefox 3.5. Downloading and going to 'about firefox' shows no indication that it is a release candidate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think firefox 3.5 IS here now .
I just went to getfirefox.com on osx and ubuntu and both show graphical links to download firefox 3.5 .
Downloading and going to 'about firefox ' shows no indication that it is a release candidate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think firefox 3.5 IS here now.
I just went to getfirefox.com on osx and ubuntu and both show graphical links to download firefox 3.5.
Downloading and going to 'about firefox' shows no indication that it is a release candidate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529937</id>
	<title>Wait, What? (Re:But...what happened to Beta 4?)</title>
	<author>EXTomar</author>
	<datestamp>1246382400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>According to that page you cited, April 24 is Beta 4 and according to the release notes for 3.5b4 it was released April 27.  Although a little off I'm not sure it qualifies as scorn or says their attitude is "...can't be bothered to update their own schedule".  Especially since it says right there "Future date are estimates" on a page authored April 19.</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to that page you cited , April 24 is Beta 4 and according to the release notes for 3.5b4 it was released April 27 .
Although a little off I 'm not sure it qualifies as scorn or says their attitude is " ...ca n't be bothered to update their own schedule " .
Especially since it says right there " Future date are estimates " on a page authored April 19 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to that page you cited, April 24 is Beta 4 and according to the release notes for 3.5b4 it was released April 27.
Although a little off I'm not sure it qualifies as scorn or says their attitude is "...can't be bothered to update their own schedule".
Especially since it says right there "Future date are estimates" on a page authored April 19.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528549</id>
	<title>Re:Non-profit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246377540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't see how Google being a larger benefactor means they're running the show.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see how Google being a larger benefactor means they 're running the show .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see how Google being a larger benefactor means they're running the show.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528253</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528355</id>
	<title>Re:HTML 5 and Javascript</title>
	<author>Tom9729</author>
	<datestamp>1246376880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Without installing any kind of plugin JavaScript is supported by virtually every modern desktop browser and a growing number of mobile browsers. Yes some websites use JavaScript to do annoying things like resize/move windows, but most browsers let you limit what a website is allowed to do.</p><p>Umm Flash on the other hand requires you to install a 3rd party plugin that may not work well (or at all) depending on what platform/browser you use.</p><p>IIRC the HTML 5 spec doesn't even say that JavaScript is "required" to play videos, it's just used for the UI.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Without installing any kind of plugin JavaScript is supported by virtually every modern desktop browser and a growing number of mobile browsers .
Yes some websites use JavaScript to do annoying things like resize/move windows , but most browsers let you limit what a website is allowed to do.Umm Flash on the other hand requires you to install a 3rd party plugin that may not work well ( or at all ) depending on what platform/browser you use.IIRC the HTML 5 spec does n't even say that JavaScript is " required " to play videos , it 's just used for the UI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without installing any kind of plugin JavaScript is supported by virtually every modern desktop browser and a growing number of mobile browsers.
Yes some websites use JavaScript to do annoying things like resize/move windows, but most browsers let you limit what a website is allowed to do.Umm Flash on the other hand requires you to install a 3rd party plugin that may not work well (or at all) depending on what platform/browser you use.IIRC the HTML 5 spec doesn't even say that JavaScript is "required" to play videos, it's just used for the UI.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528057</id>
	<title>HTML 5 and Javascript</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246375740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And will HTML 5 videos play if I don't have javascript enabled? Oops! Oh well. Back to flash then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And will HTML 5 videos play if I do n't have javascript enabled ?
Oops ! Oh well .
Back to flash then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And will HTML 5 videos play if I don't have javascript enabled?
Oops! Oh well.
Back to flash then.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28532879</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, REAL geeks ...</title>
	<author>Gnavpot</author>
	<datestamp>1246391520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>... send mail to a demon which runs wget and mails the page back.</p><blockquote><div><p>Actually, I remember doing that around 1993-1994 when I did not have a real Internet connection but only some kind of proprietary online portal subscription which included Internet email.</p></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... send mail to a demon which runs wget and mails the page back.Actually , I remember doing that around 1993-1994 when I did not have a real Internet connection but only some kind of proprietary online portal subscription which included Internet email .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... send mail to a demon which runs wget and mails the page back.Actually, I remember doing that around 1993-1994 when I did not have a real Internet connection but only some kind of proprietary online portal subscription which included Internet email.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528997</id>
	<title>Re:But...what happened to Beta 4?</title>
	<author>JustinOpinion</author>
	<datestamp>1246379280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not sure what your complaint is exactly...<br> <br>

<a href="http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/3.5b4/releasenotes/" title="mozilla.com">Firefox 3.5 Beta 4 was released on April 27 2009</a> [mozilla.com]. Just a few days after it was scheduled to be released.<br> <br>

<a href="http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/3.5/releasenotes/" title="mozilla.com">We are now at the review candidate (RC) stage</a> [mozilla.com]... which admittedly wasn't included in that original schedule since it's never known how many RCs will be needed or how far along they will be.<br> <br>

They seem to be remarkably on top of things, to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure what your complaint is exactly.. . Firefox 3.5 Beta 4 was released on April 27 2009 [ mozilla.com ] .
Just a few days after it was scheduled to be released .
We are now at the review candidate ( RC ) stage [ mozilla.com ] ... which admittedly was n't included in that original schedule since it 's never known how many RCs will be needed or how far along they will be .
They seem to be remarkably on top of things , to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure what your complaint is exactly... 

Firefox 3.5 Beta 4 was released on April 27 2009 [mozilla.com].
Just a few days after it was scheduled to be released.
We are now at the review candidate (RC) stage [mozilla.com]... which admittedly wasn't included in that original schedule since it's never known how many RCs will be needed or how far along they will be.
They seem to be remarkably on top of things, to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528305</id>
	<title>Don't you mean: "...sure NOT to prompt..."</title>
	<author>AbbeyRoad</author>
	<datestamp>1246376700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Correction:  "...and because it's the second-most-popular Web browser in the world, the new release is sure NOT to prompt Web designers to create pages tailored to the Web's new language..."</p><p>(That's better.)</p><p>I dunno what web designer in his/her right mind is going to make a web page that only 1 in 4 people can view.</p><p>Surely Mozilla developers should be trying to better emulate what the MOST popular browser does so that people won't be discouraged from using theirs; rather than creating yet more incompatibility???? Aren't they just playing into Micrsofts hands? MS is sure to just go ahead and create MSHTML 5.0 which is completely incompatible with HTML 5.0.  What will they do then?</p><p>Wave there hands madly in the air, I suppose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Correction : " ...and because it 's the second-most-popular Web browser in the world , the new release is sure NOT to prompt Web designers to create pages tailored to the Web 's new language... " ( That 's better .
) I dunno what web designer in his/her right mind is going to make a web page that only 1 in 4 people can view.Surely Mozilla developers should be trying to better emulate what the MOST popular browser does so that people wo n't be discouraged from using theirs ; rather than creating yet more incompatibility ? ? ? ?
Are n't they just playing into Micrsofts hands ?
MS is sure to just go ahead and create MSHTML 5.0 which is completely incompatible with HTML 5.0 .
What will they do then ? Wave there hands madly in the air , I suppose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correction:  "...and because it's the second-most-popular Web browser in the world, the new release is sure NOT to prompt Web designers to create pages tailored to the Web's new language..."(That's better.
)I dunno what web designer in his/her right mind is going to make a web page that only 1 in 4 people can view.Surely Mozilla developers should be trying to better emulate what the MOST popular browser does so that people won't be discouraged from using theirs; rather than creating yet more incompatibility????
Aren't they just playing into Micrsofts hands?
MS is sure to just go ahead and create MSHTML 5.0 which is completely incompatible with HTML 5.0.
What will they do then?Wave there hands madly in the air, I suppose.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28535663</id>
	<title>Re:Competition</title>
	<author>Orestesx</author>
	<datestamp>1246361160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course you are not the only one. You are mostly right, but Chrome would definitely still exist, Google created Chrome because it did not want to depend on some other company for the means to deliver its applications and web services. They leaned on Firefox for a long time; if Firefox didn't exist, it's likely Chrome would have been created even earlier.
</p><p>But I don't understand your point about the browser wars. Are you trying to say that the last time around the browsers competed by adding incompatible javascript extensions? If that were the case, then what did Firefox add to the browser wars? I would argue that the browser wars have been fought on the basis of functionality, stability, security and speed for a while (what else is there to fight about?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course you are not the only one .
You are mostly right , but Chrome would definitely still exist , Google created Chrome because it did not want to depend on some other company for the means to deliver its applications and web services .
They leaned on Firefox for a long time ; if Firefox did n't exist , it 's likely Chrome would have been created even earlier .
But I do n't understand your point about the browser wars .
Are you trying to say that the last time around the browsers competed by adding incompatible javascript extensions ?
If that were the case , then what did Firefox add to the browser wars ?
I would argue that the browser wars have been fought on the basis of functionality , stability , security and speed for a while ( what else is there to fight about ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course you are not the only one.
You are mostly right, but Chrome would definitely still exist, Google created Chrome because it did not want to depend on some other company for the means to deliver its applications and web services.
They leaned on Firefox for a long time; if Firefox didn't exist, it's likely Chrome would have been created even earlier.
But I don't understand your point about the browser wars.
Are you trying to say that the last time around the browsers competed by adding incompatible javascript extensions?
If that were the case, then what did Firefox add to the browser wars?
I would argue that the browser wars have been fought on the basis of functionality, stability, security and speed for a while (what else is there to fight about?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28539983</id>
	<title>Re:Non-profit?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1246444080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's not technically true, it's completely true. Don't the Mozilla foundation have tax exempt status?</p></div><p>It's technically true and misleading.  The Mozilla Foundation is a non-profit, but the Mozilla Corporation is not.  Moz Corp is a fully-owned subsidiary of the Foundation.  Most of the funding for development comes from Moz Corp (and their many millions of dollars per year from Google and anyone else who pays to go in the search box).</p><p><div class="quote"><p> Google would be in a world of hurt if it clamped down on Mozilla as that would definitely trigger a swift DoJ investigation into anti-trust violations.</p></div><p>The only way this would possibly be an anti-trust violation would be if Google was shown to be attempting to use its effective monopoly in the search market (not sure they have one; they only have around 70\% of the market in the US, less worldwide) to gain market share in the browser market.  Stopping buying advertising space for their search in a competitor's browser would definitely not count as an anti-trust violation any more than MS stopping funding OS/2 development when they started working on NT did.  </p><p>
Google pays a small amount for every search that comes from a browser search bar.  This includes FireFox and Safari.  If their own browser becomes a bit more popular, they may decide that they don't need to do this anymore.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not technically true , it 's completely true .
Do n't the Mozilla foundation have tax exempt status ? It 's technically true and misleading .
The Mozilla Foundation is a non-profit , but the Mozilla Corporation is not .
Moz Corp is a fully-owned subsidiary of the Foundation .
Most of the funding for development comes from Moz Corp ( and their many millions of dollars per year from Google and anyone else who pays to go in the search box ) .
Google would be in a world of hurt if it clamped down on Mozilla as that would definitely trigger a swift DoJ investigation into anti-trust violations.The only way this would possibly be an anti-trust violation would be if Google was shown to be attempting to use its effective monopoly in the search market ( not sure they have one ; they only have around 70 \ % of the market in the US , less worldwide ) to gain market share in the browser market .
Stopping buying advertising space for their search in a competitor 's browser would definitely not count as an anti-trust violation any more than MS stopping funding OS/2 development when they started working on NT did .
Google pays a small amount for every search that comes from a browser search bar .
This includes FireFox and Safari .
If their own browser becomes a bit more popular , they may decide that they do n't need to do this anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not technically true, it's completely true.
Don't the Mozilla foundation have tax exempt status?It's technically true and misleading.
The Mozilla Foundation is a non-profit, but the Mozilla Corporation is not.
Moz Corp is a fully-owned subsidiary of the Foundation.
Most of the funding for development comes from Moz Corp (and their many millions of dollars per year from Google and anyone else who pays to go in the search box).
Google would be in a world of hurt if it clamped down on Mozilla as that would definitely trigger a swift DoJ investigation into anti-trust violations.The only way this would possibly be an anti-trust violation would be if Google was shown to be attempting to use its effective monopoly in the search market (not sure they have one; they only have around 70\% of the market in the US, less worldwide) to gain market share in the browser market.
Stopping buying advertising space for their search in a competitor's browser would definitely not count as an anti-trust violation any more than MS stopping funding OS/2 development when they started working on NT did.
Google pays a small amount for every search that comes from a browser search bar.
This includes FireFox and Safari.
If their own browser becomes a bit more popular, they may decide that they don't need to do this anymore.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528389</id>
	<title>Re:Real geeks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246377000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>use telnet for browsing the internet.</p></div><p> <b>Real<b> geeks look down on lusers who use this fancy telnet; they use netcat!</b></b></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>use telnet for browsing the internet .
Real geeks look down on lusers who use this fancy telnet ; they use netcat !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>use telnet for browsing the internet.
Real geeks look down on lusers who use this fancy telnet; they use netcat!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530109</id>
	<title>Re:Released!?!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246383000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, it's just not labeled as an RC properly.  It's still not officially released.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it 's just not labeled as an RC properly .
It 's still not officially released .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it's just not labeled as an RC properly.
It's still not officially released.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530741</id>
	<title>Re:But...what happened to Beta 4?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246384620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Say what?</p><p>FF 3.5 b4 was released on April 27</p><p>http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/3.5b4/releasenotes/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Say what ? FF 3.5 b4 was released on April 27http : //www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/3.5b4/releasenotes/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Say what?FF 3.5 b4 was released on April 27http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/3.5b4/releasenotes/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528329</id>
	<title>still using iCab ;-)</title>
	<author>Herve5</author>
	<datestamp>1246376820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>indeed, am I the only one still using the mac-only, closed-source iCab -but the one that invented ad-filtering 10 years before Adblock, and still updates almost every month (now with e. g. full screen favorite-sites preview...)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>indeed , am I the only one still using the mac-only , closed-source iCab -but the one that invented ad-filtering 10 years before Adblock , and still updates almost every month ( now with e. g. full screen favorite-sites preview... ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>indeed, am I the only one still using the mac-only, closed-source iCab -but the one that invented ad-filtering 10 years before Adblock, and still updates almost every month (now with e. g. full screen favorite-sites preview...)?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529775</id>
	<title>Re:Explain to me again why this is not Evil</title>
	<author>Millennium</author>
	<datestamp>1246381980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's something of a chicken-and-egg problem here: a standard has to have implementations before it's accepted as a standard. This is how the W3C and WHAT-WG both work, and there are good reasons for it: the attempt to implement a standard often produces extremely valuable feedback for how the standard should work, which in turn prompts revisions.</p><p>In most cases, however, IE has not "implemented a version of those standards before they were standards." More often, IE used rejected ideas or even made stuff up that it never proposed, all for the sake of messing up compatibility and thus promoting lock-in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's something of a chicken-and-egg problem here : a standard has to have implementations before it 's accepted as a standard .
This is how the W3C and WHAT-WG both work , and there are good reasons for it : the attempt to implement a standard often produces extremely valuable feedback for how the standard should work , which in turn prompts revisions.In most cases , however , IE has not " implemented a version of those standards before they were standards .
" More often , IE used rejected ideas or even made stuff up that it never proposed , all for the sake of messing up compatibility and thus promoting lock-in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's something of a chicken-and-egg problem here: a standard has to have implementations before it's accepted as a standard.
This is how the W3C and WHAT-WG both work, and there are good reasons for it: the attempt to implement a standard often produces extremely valuable feedback for how the standard should work, which in turn prompts revisions.In most cases, however, IE has not "implemented a version of those standards before they were standards.
" More often, IE used rejected ideas or even made stuff up that it never proposed, all for the sake of messing up compatibility and thus promoting lock-in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529371</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28540083</id>
	<title>Re:Explain to me again why this is not Evil</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1246445220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>HTML5 is being developed in a way that is closer to IETF standards than existing W3C standards.  For something to go in the final spec, it needs two independent implementations.  Previous HTML specs have had stuff thrown in because it looks useful, with no real thought as to whether it's possible to implement.  If Mozilla, WebKit, Opera and Microsoft did not implement parts of HTML 5, then the spec would not exist.</htmltext>
<tokenext>HTML5 is being developed in a way that is closer to IETF standards than existing W3C standards .
For something to go in the final spec , it needs two independent implementations .
Previous HTML specs have had stuff thrown in because it looks useful , with no real thought as to whether it 's possible to implement .
If Mozilla , WebKit , Opera and Microsoft did not implement parts of HTML 5 , then the spec would not exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HTML5 is being developed in a way that is closer to IETF standards than existing W3C standards.
For something to go in the final spec, it needs two independent implementations.
Previous HTML specs have had stuff thrown in because it looks useful, with no real thought as to whether it's possible to implement.
If Mozilla, WebKit, Opera and Microsoft did not implement parts of HTML 5, then the spec would not exist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529371</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530627</id>
	<title>Re:3.5 has officially launched now</title>
	<author>Ardipithecus</author>
	<datestamp>1246384320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also from Help / Check Updates, which lists the add-ons that won't work with the new version</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also from Help / Check Updates , which lists the add-ons that wo n't work with the new version</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also from Help / Check Updates, which lists the add-ons that won't work with the new version</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529965</id>
	<title>Re:Acid</title>
	<author>Colonel Korn</author>
	<datestamp>1246382580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Still only a 93\% on acid3.  Better, but not good enough.</p></div><p>Good enough for what, exactly?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Still only a 93 \ % on acid3 .
Better , but not good enough.Good enough for what , exactly ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Still only a 93\% on acid3.
Better, but not good enough.Good enough for what, exactly?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528605</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529555</id>
	<title>Already Updated</title>
	<author>ITJC68</author>
	<datestamp>1246381260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is available through the software update in the browser. I find it faster. Still have to play with some of the new settings but so far very nice improvements. Best of all my addons all worked right away!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is available through the software update in the browser .
I find it faster .
Still have to play with some of the new settings but so far very nice improvements .
Best of all my addons all worked right away ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is available through the software update in the browser.
I find it faster.
Still have to play with some of the new settings but so far very nice improvements.
Best of all my addons all worked right away!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28532197</id>
	<title>Re:Explain to me again why this is not Evil</title>
	<author>paralaxcreations</author>
	<datestamp>1246389000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it quacks like a duck, it IS a duck.</p><p>But if it hasn't quacked yet, what is it?</p><p>Sure, Google/Mozilla COULD be preparing to put themselves in an MS-like position by implementing standards before they're set, and they COULD do what MS did and refuse to change their implementation for the next 10 years, even when the standard is revised.</p><p>But will they? Seeing their track record, I would bet against it. In fact, I would bet on them being the early adopters, providing the necessary feedback to bring the standard from the drawing board to reality.</p><p>What worries me most isn't what Moz/Goog are doing, but what MS ISN'T doing or WON'T be doing. If HTML5 isn't in IE8, when do you think they will implement? IE9? IE10? Seeing how long it took them to properly support CSS2 (kinda), I would bet on HTML5 being standard for a good 3 years before IE implements it (or some bastardized version of it)...which, if their market share remains even close to what it is, means it is useless in any practical sense. Even once they DO implement HTML5, we have to wait for IE6, IE7 and IE8 to die out.</p><p>So yeah, if Moz/Goog implementing HTML5 early helps get that ball rolling, I'm all for it if it means I may actually be able to use it within my lifetime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it quacks like a duck , it IS a duck.But if it has n't quacked yet , what is it ? Sure , Google/Mozilla COULD be preparing to put themselves in an MS-like position by implementing standards before they 're set , and they COULD do what MS did and refuse to change their implementation for the next 10 years , even when the standard is revised.But will they ?
Seeing their track record , I would bet against it .
In fact , I would bet on them being the early adopters , providing the necessary feedback to bring the standard from the drawing board to reality.What worries me most is n't what Moz/Goog are doing , but what MS IS N'T doing or WO N'T be doing .
If HTML5 is n't in IE8 , when do you think they will implement ?
IE9 ? IE10 ?
Seeing how long it took them to properly support CSS2 ( kinda ) , I would bet on HTML5 being standard for a good 3 years before IE implements it ( or some bastardized version of it ) ...which , if their market share remains even close to what it is , means it is useless in any practical sense .
Even once they DO implement HTML5 , we have to wait for IE6 , IE7 and IE8 to die out.So yeah , if Moz/Goog implementing HTML5 early helps get that ball rolling , I 'm all for it if it means I may actually be able to use it within my lifetime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it quacks like a duck, it IS a duck.But if it hasn't quacked yet, what is it?Sure, Google/Mozilla COULD be preparing to put themselves in an MS-like position by implementing standards before they're set, and they COULD do what MS did and refuse to change their implementation for the next 10 years, even when the standard is revised.But will they?
Seeing their track record, I would bet against it.
In fact, I would bet on them being the early adopters, providing the necessary feedback to bring the standard from the drawing board to reality.What worries me most isn't what Moz/Goog are doing, but what MS ISN'T doing or WON'T be doing.
If HTML5 isn't in IE8, when do you think they will implement?
IE9? IE10?
Seeing how long it took them to properly support CSS2 (kinda), I would bet on HTML5 being standard for a good 3 years before IE implements it (or some bastardized version of it)...which, if their market share remains even close to what it is, means it is useless in any practical sense.
Even once they DO implement HTML5, we have to wait for IE6, IE7 and IE8 to die out.So yeah, if Moz/Goog implementing HTML5 early helps get that ball rolling, I'm all for it if it means I may actually be able to use it within my lifetime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529371</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529649</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, REAL geeks ...</title>
	<author>yet-another-lobbyist</author>
	<datestamp>1246381500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, this is unbelievable! I can't imagine how the Internet is any fun like this. Why is he doing this? Seems just totally eccentric to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , this is unbelievable !
I ca n't imagine how the Internet is any fun like this .
Why is he doing this ?
Seems just totally eccentric to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, this is unbelievable!
I can't imagine how the Internet is any fun like this.
Why is he doing this?
Seems just totally eccentric to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528085</id>
	<title>Re:As usual with new Firefox releases...</title>
	<author>thedonger</author>
	<datestamp>1246375800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(frequently over a gig of it)</p></div><p>Are you including virtual memory in that figure? I can't seem to fun FF without at least 100MB of physical memory, but I never see the sum of physical and virtual go over 600MB (Jesus! I have really lowered my expectations thinking that isn't a lot!) with 15 tabs open for a week.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( frequently over a gig of it ) Are you including virtual memory in that figure ?
I ca n't seem to fun FF without at least 100MB of physical memory , but I never see the sum of physical and virtual go over 600MB ( Jesus !
I have really lowered my expectations thinking that is n't a lot !
) with 15 tabs open for a week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(frequently over a gig of it)Are you including virtual memory in that figure?
I can't seem to fun FF without at least 100MB of physical memory, but I never see the sum of physical and virtual go over 600MB (Jesus!
I have really lowered my expectations thinking that isn't a lot!
) with 15 tabs open for a week.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28540011</id>
	<title>I hated the awesome bar too</title>
	<author>cyclomedia</author>
	<datestamp>1246444440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>but have since grown to love it. If you bookmark your favourite sites but still clear private data on exit (history especially) then the awesome bar only lists sites in your favourites (or current session) when typing in, making it a lot more managable and trainable. so now when i start firefox s is slashdot, e is ebay and n is bbc news, nice!</htmltext>
<tokenext>but have since grown to love it .
If you bookmark your favourite sites but still clear private data on exit ( history especially ) then the awesome bar only lists sites in your favourites ( or current session ) when typing in , making it a lot more managable and trainable .
so now when i start firefox s is slashdot , e is ebay and n is bbc news , nice !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but have since grown to love it.
If you bookmark your favourite sites but still clear private data on exit (history especially) then the awesome bar only lists sites in your favourites (or current session) when typing in, making it a lot more managable and trainable.
so now when i start firefox s is slashdot, e is ebay and n is bbc news, nice!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28538671</id>
	<title>Re:HTML 5 and Javascript</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246384260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the default UI doesn't even need JS - you just need it if you make a custom UI.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the default UI does n't even need JS - you just need it if you make a custom UI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the default UI doesn't even need JS - you just need it if you make a custom UI.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528625</id>
	<title>Re:It's full of stars</title>
	<author>acariquara</author>
	<datestamp>1246377840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't have to. The latest Release Candidate *IS* the final build.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't have to .
The latest Release Candidate * IS * the final build .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't have to.
The latest Release Candidate *IS* the final build.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528073</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529381</id>
	<title>Available from the built-in updater</title>
	<author>Nakor BlueRider</author>
	<datestamp>1246380720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Windows users can go to "Help &gt; Check for updates..." in FireFox now to find the 3.5 update.  It also has a button to test which extensions will need to be disabled before you actually run the update on that page.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows users can go to " Help &gt; Check for updates... " in FireFox now to find the 3.5 update .
It also has a button to test which extensions will need to be disabled before you actually run the update on that page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows users can go to "Help &gt; Check for updates..." in FireFox now to find the 3.5 update.
It also has a button to test which extensions will need to be disabled before you actually run the update on that page.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529483</id>
	<title>Re:Real geeks</title>
	<author>mcnazar</author>
	<datestamp>1246381020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>telnet??!!11</p><p>I dumped telnet for browsing once I discovered Gopher. Try it. You'll never look back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>telnet ? ? !
! 11I dumped telnet for browsing once I discovered Gopher .
Try it .
You 'll never look back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>telnet??!
!11I dumped telnet for browsing once I discovered Gopher.
Try it.
You'll never look back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529631</id>
	<title>Re:Real geeks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246381500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, REAL men use acoustic coupler modems to post through BBS hubs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , REAL men use acoustic coupler modems to post through BBS hubs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, REAL men use acoustic coupler modems to post through BBS hubs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530899</id>
	<title>Re:Competition</title>
	<author>koreaman</author>
	<datestamp>1246384920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>P.S. even though your last comment is stupid, I just read through the rest of your posts and decided I am a big fan. I fucking hate the Slashdot copyright groupthink. Keep up the good work bringing the truth to people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>P.S .
even though your last comment is stupid , I just read through the rest of your posts and decided I am a big fan .
I fucking hate the Slashdot copyright groupthink .
Keep up the good work bringing the truth to people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>P.S.
even though your last comment is stupid, I just read through the rest of your posts and decided I am a big fan.
I fucking hate the Slashdot copyright groupthink.
Keep up the good work bringing the truth to people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28532677</id>
	<title>Re:Real geeks</title>
	<author>fast turtle</author>
	<datestamp>1246390680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ribbit using Kermit to browse the net</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ribbit using Kermit to browse the net</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ribbit using Kermit to browse the net</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528585</id>
	<title>Competition</title>
	<author>koreaman</author>
	<datestamp>1246377720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Am I the only one who doesn't see the multiplicity of real competition as a threat, but rather as the greatest success of the Mozilla Foundation? Had it not been for Firefox, Opera would still cost money, Google Chrome wouldn't exist, a few people who paid way too much for their computers would be running Safari, and most (l)users would be stuck with the latest version of IE -- IE6. Thank you, Firefox, for reigniting the browser wars, and here's hoping that this time around the wars will be fought with functionality, stability, security, and speed, rather than with a new incompatible extension to JavaScript every week.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one who does n't see the multiplicity of real competition as a threat , but rather as the greatest success of the Mozilla Foundation ?
Had it not been for Firefox , Opera would still cost money , Google Chrome would n't exist , a few people who paid way too much for their computers would be running Safari , and most ( l ) users would be stuck with the latest version of IE -- IE6 .
Thank you , Firefox , for reigniting the browser wars , and here 's hoping that this time around the wars will be fought with functionality , stability , security , and speed , rather than with a new incompatible extension to JavaScript every week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one who doesn't see the multiplicity of real competition as a threat, but rather as the greatest success of the Mozilla Foundation?
Had it not been for Firefox, Opera would still cost money, Google Chrome wouldn't exist, a few people who paid way too much for their computers would be running Safari, and most (l)users would be stuck with the latest version of IE -- IE6.
Thank you, Firefox, for reigniting the browser wars, and here's hoping that this time around the wars will be fought with functionality, stability, security, and speed, rather than with a new incompatible extension to JavaScript every week.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28531523</id>
	<title>No speed boost for modern computer users...</title>
	<author>hackel</author>
	<datestamp>1246386720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're using a modern computer with a 64-bit cpu and a modern 64-bit operating system, you won't get any of the speed benefits of FF3.5 because TraceMonkey does not yet work.  This is extremely irritating, to say the least!  Mozilla's solution is to run the 32-bit version on top of your 64-bit OS, but this isn't really a solution at all...</p><p>It's amazing how many developers are still stuck in the stone age (comparatively, in computer terms)...  I wish I had the technical knowledge to help fix something like that, but I imagine JIT compiling takes some serious expertise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're using a modern computer with a 64-bit cpu and a modern 64-bit operating system , you wo n't get any of the speed benefits of FF3.5 because TraceMonkey does not yet work .
This is extremely irritating , to say the least !
Mozilla 's solution is to run the 32-bit version on top of your 64-bit OS , but this is n't really a solution at all...It 's amazing how many developers are still stuck in the stone age ( comparatively , in computer terms ) ... I wish I had the technical knowledge to help fix something like that , but I imagine JIT compiling takes some serious expertise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're using a modern computer with a 64-bit cpu and a modern 64-bit operating system, you won't get any of the speed benefits of FF3.5 because TraceMonkey does not yet work.
This is extremely irritating, to say the least!
Mozilla's solution is to run the 32-bit version on top of your 64-bit OS, but this isn't really a solution at all...It's amazing how many developers are still stuck in the stone age (comparatively, in computer terms)...  I wish I had the technical knowledge to help fix something like that, but I imagine JIT compiling takes some serious expertise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28536553</id>
	<title>Re:Tilting at windmills...</title>
	<author>LiquidFire\_HK</author>
	<datestamp>1246365660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They sort of did, actually. There's an option for what the bar should suggest when typing. Options are history, bookmarks, none or both (the default).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They sort of did , actually .
There 's an option for what the bar should suggest when typing .
Options are history , bookmarks , none or both ( the default ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They sort of did, actually.
There's an option for what the bar should suggest when typing.
Options are history, bookmarks, none or both (the default).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529077</id>
	<title>Re:Released!?!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246379580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless you read the box.  It has 3.5 in big letters, but under that it is still 3.0.11 for windows...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless you read the box .
It has 3.5 in big letters , but under that it is still 3.0.11 for windows.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless you read the box.
It has 3.5 in big letters, but under that it is still 3.0.11 for windows...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530057</id>
	<title>You print? To Paper?</title>
	<author>gbutler69</author>
	<datestamp>1246382820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>WTF? Nobody does that anymore!</htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF ?
Nobody does that anymore !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF?
Nobody does that anymore!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528251</id>
	<title>Re:HTML 5 and Javascript</title>
	<author>ikefox</author>
	<datestamp>1246376520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I suggest you take a look at Kroc Camen's "Video for Everybody" HTML5 video element implementation. Not a hint of Javascript is necessary to implement it, and it's very cross-platform. It can play back in OGG, Flash, Quicktime (even on the iPhone), WMA, or alternatively provide a download link.
<a href="http://camendesign.com/code/video\_for\_everybody" title="camendesign.com" rel="nofollow">http://camendesign.com/code/video\_for\_everybody</a> [camendesign.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I suggest you take a look at Kroc Camen 's " Video for Everybody " HTML5 video element implementation .
Not a hint of Javascript is necessary to implement it , and it 's very cross-platform .
It can play back in OGG , Flash , Quicktime ( even on the iPhone ) , WMA , or alternatively provide a download link .
http : //camendesign.com/code/video \ _for \ _everybody [ camendesign.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suggest you take a look at Kroc Camen's "Video for Everybody" HTML5 video element implementation.
Not a hint of Javascript is necessary to implement it, and it's very cross-platform.
It can play back in OGG, Flash, Quicktime (even on the iPhone), WMA, or alternatively provide a download link.
http://camendesign.com/code/video\_for\_everybody [camendesign.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528951</id>
	<title>Re:Huge update</title>
	<author>lattyware</author>
	<datestamp>1246379100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No profit doesn't mean they don't have money.

Many people and companies donate money, buy merchandise, and donate servers or the like.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No profit does n't mean they do n't have money .
Many people and companies donate money , buy merchandise , and donate servers or the like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No profit doesn't mean they don't have money.
Many people and companies donate money, buy merchandise, and donate servers or the like.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28534321</id>
	<title>Re:Don't you mean: "...sure NOT to prompt..."</title>
	<author>Cr4wford</author>
	<datestamp>1246354380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>lolwut?<br> <br>

Modern web development is all about "progressive enhancement." A website should be built for a bare minimum of functionality to cater to the lowest common denominator of browsers, with additional "layers" of features (javascript effects, HTML5, CSS3, etc.) added on top. For those that can utilize these additional features, they get a better web experience. For those who can't, they still get a functional website, it just might not be as pretty or have that advanced functionality.<br> <br>

What you're describing is more reminiscent of the Netscape-IE browser wars, each fighting with their own proprietary features, which did create compatibility problems. Firefox isn't adding proprietary features, HTML5 is a web standard created by the W3C. And as of late, Windows has been much better about complying with W3C web standards--although not as well as Firefox/Safari/Chrome/Opera. At the very least, I am sure they wouldn't create their own proprietary HTML5.</htmltext>
<tokenext>lolwut ?
Modern web development is all about " progressive enhancement .
" A website should be built for a bare minimum of functionality to cater to the lowest common denominator of browsers , with additional " layers " of features ( javascript effects , HTML5 , CSS3 , etc .
) added on top .
For those that can utilize these additional features , they get a better web experience .
For those who ca n't , they still get a functional website , it just might not be as pretty or have that advanced functionality .
What you 're describing is more reminiscent of the Netscape-IE browser wars , each fighting with their own proprietary features , which did create compatibility problems .
Firefox is n't adding proprietary features , HTML5 is a web standard created by the W3C .
And as of late , Windows has been much better about complying with W3C web standards--although not as well as Firefox/Safari/Chrome/Opera .
At the very least , I am sure they would n't create their own proprietary HTML5 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lolwut?
Modern web development is all about "progressive enhancement.
" A website should be built for a bare minimum of functionality to cater to the lowest common denominator of browsers, with additional "layers" of features (javascript effects, HTML5, CSS3, etc.
) added on top.
For those that can utilize these additional features, they get a better web experience.
For those who can't, they still get a functional website, it just might not be as pretty or have that advanced functionality.
What you're describing is more reminiscent of the Netscape-IE browser wars, each fighting with their own proprietary features, which did create compatibility problems.
Firefox isn't adding proprietary features, HTML5 is a web standard created by the W3C.
And as of late, Windows has been much better about complying with W3C web standards--although not as well as Firefox/Safari/Chrome/Opera.
At the very least, I am sure they wouldn't create their own proprietary HTML5.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528305</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528961</id>
	<title>One new feature I'm pleased about....</title>
	<author>117</author>
	<datestamp>1246379160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...is that Firefox finally has an 'open a new tab' icon by default (adjacent to the last open tab in the list), <i>I</i> know that you can add an icon yourself, and that double-clicking the tab bar opens a new tab, but I know plenty of people that weren't even aware that tabbed browsing is a feature of Firefox as it wasn't obvious!</htmltext>
<tokenext>...is that Firefox finally has an 'open a new tab ' icon by default ( adjacent to the last open tab in the list ) , I know that you can add an icon yourself , and that double-clicking the tab bar opens a new tab , but I know plenty of people that were n't even aware that tabbed browsing is a feature of Firefox as it was n't obvious !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is that Firefox finally has an 'open a new tab' icon by default (adjacent to the last open tab in the list), I know that you can add an icon yourself, and that double-clicking the tab bar opens a new tab, but I know plenty of people that weren't even aware that tabbed browsing is a feature of Firefox as it wasn't obvious!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530609</id>
	<title>Re:Competition</title>
	<author>mambodog</author>
	<datestamp>1246384260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>a few people who paid way too much for their computers would be running Safari</p></div><p>I see what you did there..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>a few people who paid way too much for their computers would be running SafariI see what you did there. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a few people who paid way too much for their computers would be running SafariI see what you did there..
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528545</id>
	<title>Er.... what???</title>
	<author>brunes69</author>
	<datestamp>1246377540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you are disabling javascript, but allowing flash? That makes no sense whatsoever.</p><p>For one, I don't know of many sites whose flash applets will work properly without Javascript to initialize them. For two, flash has MUCH larger potential for security holes and exploits than Javascript, which does not even have write access to the filesystem in any way. One wrong buffer overflow in flash and the thing can actually WRITE to your hard drive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you are disabling javascript , but allowing flash ?
That makes no sense whatsoever.For one , I do n't know of many sites whose flash applets will work properly without Javascript to initialize them .
For two , flash has MUCH larger potential for security holes and exploits than Javascript , which does not even have write access to the filesystem in any way .
One wrong buffer overflow in flash and the thing can actually WRITE to your hard drive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you are disabling javascript, but allowing flash?
That makes no sense whatsoever.For one, I don't know of many sites whose flash applets will work properly without Javascript to initialize them.
For two, flash has MUCH larger potential for security holes and exploits than Javascript, which does not even have write access to the filesystem in any way.
One wrong buffer overflow in flash and the thing can actually WRITE to your hard drive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529991</id>
	<title>Re:HTML 5 and Javascript</title>
	<author>Tielman</author>
	<datestamp>1246382640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess I'm doing something wrong:  Firefox v3.5, noscript.</p><p>Video does not play unless Javascript is enabled.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess I 'm doing something wrong : Firefox v3.5 , noscript.Video does not play unless Javascript is enabled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess I'm doing something wrong:  Firefox v3.5, noscript.Video does not play unless Javascript is enabled.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528251</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28535031</id>
	<title>Re:I hope they fixed printing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246357620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stop wasting trees.  There is no reason to print a web page.  Ever.  Stop it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop wasting trees .
There is no reason to print a web page .
Ever. Stop it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop wasting trees.
There is no reason to print a web page.
Ever.  Stop it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28535341</id>
	<title>Re:Explain to me again why this is not Evil</title>
	<author>SurenPala</author>
	<datestamp>1246359420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are forgetting the fact that IE is still the dominant browser (65\%) and not even their newest version supports any of these features. 17\% of internet users are still using IE6, 41\% IE7, and only 7\% for IE8. Just think how long it will take before 90\% of users are using a browser that supports HTML5 and until then very few people will support it, unless they can specifically target Firefox 3.5+. I suspect Windows 9 will be out by the time that happens.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are forgetting the fact that IE is still the dominant browser ( 65 \ % ) and not even their newest version supports any of these features .
17 \ % of internet users are still using IE6 , 41 \ % IE7 , and only 7 \ % for IE8 .
Just think how long it will take before 90 \ % of users are using a browser that supports HTML5 and until then very few people will support it , unless they can specifically target Firefox 3.5 + .
I suspect Windows 9 will be out by the time that happens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are forgetting the fact that IE is still the dominant browser (65\%) and not even their newest version supports any of these features.
17\% of internet users are still using IE6, 41\% IE7, and only 7\% for IE8.
Just think how long it will take before 90\% of users are using a browser that supports HTML5 and until then very few people will support it, unless they can specifically target Firefox 3.5+.
I suspect Windows 9 will be out by the time that happens.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529371</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528315</id>
	<title>Re:HTML 5 and Javascript</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246376760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're concerned about running javascript, but not about running the massive bundle of vulnerabilities that is flash?</p><p>I give up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're concerned about running javascript , but not about running the massive bundle of vulnerabilities that is flash ? I give up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're concerned about running javascript, but not about running the massive bundle of vulnerabilities that is flash?I give up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528339</id>
	<title>Bloat</title>
	<author>Spazmania</author>
	<datestamp>1246376820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I usually kill off my firefox 3.0 and restart it once it reaches the point where its holding 400 megs of ram and takes a quarter-second to respond to button presses. Wasn't Firefox's advantage over Mozilla supposed to be the lack of bloat?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I usually kill off my firefox 3.0 and restart it once it reaches the point where its holding 400 megs of ram and takes a quarter-second to respond to button presses .
Was n't Firefox 's advantage over Mozilla supposed to be the lack of bloat ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I usually kill off my firefox 3.0 and restart it once it reaches the point where its holding 400 megs of ram and takes a quarter-second to respond to button presses.
Wasn't Firefox's advantage over Mozilla supposed to be the lack of bloat?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28534813</id>
	<title>Re:Competition</title>
	<author>VGPowerlord</author>
	<datestamp>1246356540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, we're pulling the "make shit up" game?</p><p>OK, my turn!</p><p>Has it not been for Firefox, Google Chrome would probably have been released years earlier and be the number two browser on the web, IE would still have been updated to compete with Chrome, and Opera would still cost money as they wouldn't be getting any money from Google.</p><p>P.S. ECMAScript is the standardized version of Javascript.  The latest edition is ECMAScript 3, published in 1999.</p><p>Since then, Mozilla has released JavaScript 1.6 - 1.8.x.  While other browsers may support parts of these, Firefox is the only one that implements the entire thing, seeing as <b>they wrote it</b>.  Since it's not part of the standard, each update is a de facto "new incompatible extension" to the language.</p><p>Additionally, the DOM is a separate standard maintained by the W3C.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , we 're pulling the " make shit up " game ? OK , my turn ! Has it not been for Firefox , Google Chrome would probably have been released years earlier and be the number two browser on the web , IE would still have been updated to compete with Chrome , and Opera would still cost money as they would n't be getting any money from Google.P.S .
ECMAScript is the standardized version of Javascript .
The latest edition is ECMAScript 3 , published in 1999.Since then , Mozilla has released JavaScript 1.6 - 1.8.x .
While other browsers may support parts of these , Firefox is the only one that implements the entire thing , seeing as they wrote it .
Since it 's not part of the standard , each update is a de facto " new incompatible extension " to the language.Additionally , the DOM is a separate standard maintained by the W3C .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, we're pulling the "make shit up" game?OK, my turn!Has it not been for Firefox, Google Chrome would probably have been released years earlier and be the number two browser on the web, IE would still have been updated to compete with Chrome, and Opera would still cost money as they wouldn't be getting any money from Google.P.S.
ECMAScript is the standardized version of Javascript.
The latest edition is ECMAScript 3, published in 1999.Since then, Mozilla has released JavaScript 1.6 - 1.8.x.
While other browsers may support parts of these, Firefox is the only one that implements the entire thing, seeing as they wrote it.
Since it's not part of the standard, each update is a de facto "new incompatible extension" to the language.Additionally, the DOM is a separate standard maintained by the W3C.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528381</id>
	<title>It's here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246377000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get it now http://www.getfirefox.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get it now http : //www.getfirefox.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get it now http://www.getfirefox.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28532431</id>
	<title>Re:Explain to me again why this is not Evil</title>
	<author>arevos</author>
	<datestamp>1246389840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>and Microsoft implemented a version of those standards before they were standards, and became the Defacto Quirks Mode way things were done for a long time, and that was deemed Evil.</p></div><p>Supporting future standards before they've gone through the full W3C process is not evil. Microsoft were criticised for implementing their own standards, screwing up existing standards, and taking too long to discard failed standards.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Now there are standards around HTML5 being proposed, but probably 10 years off, or at least way off</p></div><p>The HTML5 standard is meant to be implemented incrementally. The sections which browsers are implementing are generally pretty stable.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>and Firefox and Google are implementing a version of these standars</p></div><p>And Opera and Apple. Even Microsoft have taken a couple of APIs from HTML5.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and Microsoft implemented a version of those standards before they were standards , and became the Defacto Quirks Mode way things were done for a long time , and that was deemed Evil.Supporting future standards before they 've gone through the full W3C process is not evil .
Microsoft were criticised for implementing their own standards , screwing up existing standards , and taking too long to discard failed standards.Now there are standards around HTML5 being proposed , but probably 10 years off , or at least way offThe HTML5 standard is meant to be implemented incrementally .
The sections which browsers are implementing are generally pretty stable.and Firefox and Google are implementing a version of these standarsAnd Opera and Apple .
Even Microsoft have taken a couple of APIs from HTML5 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and Microsoft implemented a version of those standards before they were standards, and became the Defacto Quirks Mode way things were done for a long time, and that was deemed Evil.Supporting future standards before they've gone through the full W3C process is not evil.
Microsoft were criticised for implementing their own standards, screwing up existing standards, and taking too long to discard failed standards.Now there are standards around HTML5 being proposed, but probably 10 years off, or at least way offThe HTML5 standard is meant to be implemented incrementally.
The sections which browsers are implementing are generally pretty stable.and Firefox and Google are implementing a version of these standarsAnd Opera and Apple.
Even Microsoft have taken a couple of APIs from HTML5.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529371</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28536189</id>
	<title>Re:Don't you mean: "...sure NOT to prompt..."</title>
	<author>Simetrical</author>
	<datestamp>1246363740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I dunno what web designer in his/her right mind is going to make a web page that only 1 in 4 people can view.</p><p>Surely Mozilla developers should be trying to better emulate what the MOST popular browser does so that people won't be discouraged from using theirs; rather than creating yet more incompatibility????</p></div><p>Why do you think IE8 fully supports CSS2.1?  Because every other browser agreed on a standard, and IE got the reputation of "first make everything work in standards-compliant browsers, then hack on support for IE's brokenness" among web developers.  Microsoft isn't so much of a monopoly that they can't be pressured by good features in other browsers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I dunno what web designer in his/her right mind is going to make a web page that only 1 in 4 people can view.Surely Mozilla developers should be trying to better emulate what the MOST popular browser does so that people wo n't be discouraged from using theirs ; rather than creating yet more incompatibility ? ? ?
? Why do you think IE8 fully supports CSS2.1 ?
Because every other browser agreed on a standard , and IE got the reputation of " first make everything work in standards-compliant browsers , then hack on support for IE 's brokenness " among web developers .
Microsoft is n't so much of a monopoly that they ca n't be pressured by good features in other browsers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dunno what web designer in his/her right mind is going to make a web page that only 1 in 4 people can view.Surely Mozilla developers should be trying to better emulate what the MOST popular browser does so that people won't be discouraged from using theirs; rather than creating yet more incompatibility???
?Why do you think IE8 fully supports CSS2.1?
Because every other browser agreed on a standard, and IE got the reputation of "first make everything work in standards-compliant browsers, then hack on support for IE's brokenness" among web developers.
Microsoft isn't so much of a monopoly that they can't be pressured by good features in other browsers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528305</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528323</id>
	<title>It's up now!</title>
	<author>anom</author>
	<datestamp>1246376760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>www.getfirefox.com<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>www.getfirefox.com : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>www.getfirefox.com :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28532127</id>
	<title>Re:Competition</title>
	<author>hkmwbz</author>
	<datestamp>1246388760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Had it not been for Firefox, Opera would still cost money, Google Chrome wouldn't exist</p></div></blockquote><p>
That's crazy talk. Chrome's existence did not and does not depend on Firefox.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Had it not been for Firefox , Opera would still cost money , Google Chrome would n't exist That 's crazy talk .
Chrome 's existence did not and does not depend on Firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Had it not been for Firefox, Opera would still cost money, Google Chrome wouldn't exist
That's crazy talk.
Chrome's existence did not and does not depend on Firefox.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528693</id>
	<title>Re:As usual with new Firefox releases...</title>
	<author>jc42</author>
	<datestamp>1246378080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I can't seem to fun FF without at least 100MB of physical memory, but I never see the sum of physical and virtual go over 600MB</i></p><p>Hmmm<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I'm using a Macbook Pro at the moment, and according to the Activity Monitor window, Firefox is currently using RSIZE=338.62MB and VSIZE=1.37GB.  This is with 7 windows with 25 tabs open, plus the "Library" (i.e., bookmarks) window.  This seems about normal  We also have a smaller, 5-year-old Mac Powerbook with only 1 GB of memory (vs the 4 GB on this machine), and FF there typically shows numbers about half as large.  It's a lot slower there, of course.</p><p>I've noticed that the RSIZE and VSIZE numbers rarely seem to have any discernable correlation with what FF is doing.  I've also found that if I "kill -9" (force quit) the firefox process, restart it, and tell it to restore the previous windows, it usually uses only about half as much memory as it used before it was killed.  This tells me something about its memory wastage, I suppose.  But it doesn't really tell me much that's usable, since it usually balloons back up in a fairly short time.</p><p>I do have some evidence that part of the problem is that memory expands permanently if I download any sort of "active" page.  A page with flash is the really visible culprit, and I have flashblock installed.  Still, there are some sites I'd like to look at that use flash in a useful way, so sometimes I enable flash for them.  Then I watch to see whether it has ballooned up.  Every few days I kill it and restart it, to get the memory back.</p><p>It does seem likely that FF has little if any control over memory usage by plugins such as video viewers.  They are really separate pieces of software, with minimal interaction with the main program.  They are "black boxes" as far as FF itself is concerned, and FF would have little if any control over the way they use memory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't seem to fun FF without at least 100MB of physical memory , but I never see the sum of physical and virtual go over 600MBHmmm ... I 'm using a Macbook Pro at the moment , and according to the Activity Monitor window , Firefox is currently using RSIZE = 338.62MB and VSIZE = 1.37GB .
This is with 7 windows with 25 tabs open , plus the " Library " ( i.e. , bookmarks ) window .
This seems about normal We also have a smaller , 5-year-old Mac Powerbook with only 1 GB of memory ( vs the 4 GB on this machine ) , and FF there typically shows numbers about half as large .
It 's a lot slower there , of course.I 've noticed that the RSIZE and VSIZE numbers rarely seem to have any discernable correlation with what FF is doing .
I 've also found that if I " kill -9 " ( force quit ) the firefox process , restart it , and tell it to restore the previous windows , it usually uses only about half as much memory as it used before it was killed .
This tells me something about its memory wastage , I suppose .
But it does n't really tell me much that 's usable , since it usually balloons back up in a fairly short time.I do have some evidence that part of the problem is that memory expands permanently if I download any sort of " active " page .
A page with flash is the really visible culprit , and I have flashblock installed .
Still , there are some sites I 'd like to look at that use flash in a useful way , so sometimes I enable flash for them .
Then I watch to see whether it has ballooned up .
Every few days I kill it and restart it , to get the memory back.It does seem likely that FF has little if any control over memory usage by plugins such as video viewers .
They are really separate pieces of software , with minimal interaction with the main program .
They are " black boxes " as far as FF itself is concerned , and FF would have little if any control over the way they use memory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't seem to fun FF without at least 100MB of physical memory, but I never see the sum of physical and virtual go over 600MBHmmm ... I'm using a Macbook Pro at the moment, and according to the Activity Monitor window, Firefox is currently using RSIZE=338.62MB and VSIZE=1.37GB.
This is with 7 windows with 25 tabs open, plus the "Library" (i.e., bookmarks) window.
This seems about normal  We also have a smaller, 5-year-old Mac Powerbook with only 1 GB of memory (vs the 4 GB on this machine), and FF there typically shows numbers about half as large.
It's a lot slower there, of course.I've noticed that the RSIZE and VSIZE numbers rarely seem to have any discernable correlation with what FF is doing.
I've also found that if I "kill -9" (force quit) the firefox process, restart it, and tell it to restore the previous windows, it usually uses only about half as much memory as it used before it was killed.
This tells me something about its memory wastage, I suppose.
But it doesn't really tell me much that's usable, since it usually balloons back up in a fairly short time.I do have some evidence that part of the problem is that memory expands permanently if I download any sort of "active" page.
A page with flash is the really visible culprit, and I have flashblock installed.
Still, there are some sites I'd like to look at that use flash in a useful way, so sometimes I enable flash for them.
Then I watch to see whether it has ballooned up.
Every few days I kill it and restart it, to get the memory back.It does seem likely that FF has little if any control over memory usage by plugins such as video viewers.
They are really separate pieces of software, with minimal interaction with the main program.
They are "black boxes" as far as FF itself is concerned, and FF would have little if any control over the way they use memory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528085</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528423</id>
	<title>Re:Non-profit?</title>
	<author>mrsteveman1</author>
	<datestamp>1246377180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes, that claim is technically true, but it hides the truth about how Firefox is really kept afloat.</p></div><p>The fox has waterwings on, he can't swim.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , that claim is technically true , but it hides the truth about how Firefox is really kept afloat.The fox has waterwings on , he ca n't swim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, that claim is technically true, but it hides the truth about how Firefox is really kept afloat.The fox has waterwings on, he can't swim.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528253</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530203</id>
	<title>Re:I hope they fixed printing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246383240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>pebkac.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>pebkac .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pebkac.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528183</id>
	<title>Let me be the first to say...</title>
	<author>McNihil</author>
	<datestamp>1246376220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We are all like a bunch of jonzing pirates wanting FF 3.5... Like crack addicts we need our fix... like yesterday... or the day before.</p><p>We want it NOW!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We are all like a bunch of jonzing pirates wanting FF 3.5... Like crack addicts we need our fix... like yesterday... or the day before.We want it NOW ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are all like a bunch of jonzing pirates wanting FF 3.5... Like crack addicts we need our fix... like yesterday... or the day before.We want it NOW!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28533225</id>
	<title>Re:Explain to me again why this is not Evil</title>
	<author>Eighty7</author>
	<datestamp>1246392960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck.</p></div></blockquote><p>

A lot of things are illegal only if you're a monopoply. For example the only reason Apple gets away with bundling, FUD, price jacking etc is because they don't have the market distorting power that MS does. Distorting the market is what is illegal -- using a monopoly in one area to kill competition in another area. Apple won't get an automatic monopoly in browsers by bundling.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it quacks like a duck , it 's a duck .
A lot of things are illegal only if you 're a monopoply .
For example the only reason Apple gets away with bundling , FUD , price jacking etc is because they do n't have the market distorting power that MS does .
Distorting the market is what is illegal -- using a monopoly in one area to kill competition in another area .
Apple wo n't get an automatic monopoly in browsers by bundling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
A lot of things are illegal only if you're a monopoply.
For example the only reason Apple gets away with bundling, FUD, price jacking etc is because they don't have the market distorting power that MS does.
Distorting the market is what is illegal -- using a monopoly in one area to kill competition in another area.
Apple won't get an automatic monopoly in browsers by bundling.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529371</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528999</id>
	<title>Re:3.5 has officially launched now</title>
	<author>pdboddy</author>
	<datestamp>1246379280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes.  I'm using FF3.5 now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
I 'm using FF3.5 now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
I'm using FF3.5 now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28542279</id>
	<title>Re:Bloat</title>
	<author>Nicolay77</author>
	<datestamp>1246462860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you tried Opera 10 Beta?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you tried Opera 10 Beta ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you tried Opera 10 Beta?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28535153</id>
	<title>So still no MSI for Windows</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1246358280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>May I really ask who or what Firefox developers fight(!) with? Like or not, MSI is the way to get into Enterprise, a signed MSI is even better. In fact, most of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.exe installers you see these days are actually MSI packaged in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.exe.</p><p>It is really interesting that they insist on not shipping MSI versions of their software, at least in a FTP folder like "alternate\_installers" which admins will pull msi from. It became even more interesting since I found this: <a href="http://wix.sourceforge.net/" title="sourceforge.net">http://wix.sourceforge.net/</a> [sourceforge.net] , yes open source from MS, hosted by Sourceforge and it actually works. What does MSI do? Hurt feelings of the developers there? I really can't understand. It is basically RPM for Windows which gives some bonus features like repair etc. to ordinary users but it is huge deal on enterprise.</p><p>ps: Same thing on OS X but we are kinda fine with Drag&amp;Drop installs while it even matters at home sized networks. A<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.pkg would be way better. Anyway, no gigantic enterprise sized OS X networks around like the Windows ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>May I really ask who or what Firefox developers fight ( !
) with ?
Like or not , MSI is the way to get into Enterprise , a signed MSI is even better .
In fact , most of .exe installers you see these days are actually MSI packaged in .exe.It is really interesting that they insist on not shipping MSI versions of their software , at least in a FTP folder like " alternate \ _installers " which admins will pull msi from .
It became even more interesting since I found this : http : //wix.sourceforge.net/ [ sourceforge.net ] , yes open source from MS , hosted by Sourceforge and it actually works .
What does MSI do ?
Hurt feelings of the developers there ?
I really ca n't understand .
It is basically RPM for Windows which gives some bonus features like repair etc .
to ordinary users but it is huge deal on enterprise.ps : Same thing on OS X but we are kinda fine with Drag&amp;Drop installs while it even matters at home sized networks .
A .pkg would be way better .
Anyway , no gigantic enterprise sized OS X networks around like the Windows ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>May I really ask who or what Firefox developers fight(!
) with?
Like or not, MSI is the way to get into Enterprise, a signed MSI is even better.
In fact, most of .exe installers you see these days are actually MSI packaged in .exe.It is really interesting that they insist on not shipping MSI versions of their software, at least in a FTP folder like "alternate\_installers" which admins will pull msi from.
It became even more interesting since I found this: http://wix.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net] , yes open source from MS, hosted by Sourceforge and it actually works.
What does MSI do?
Hurt feelings of the developers there?
I really can't understand.
It is basically RPM for Windows which gives some bonus features like repair etc.
to ordinary users but it is huge deal on enterprise.ps: Same thing on OS X but we are kinda fine with Drag&amp;Drop installs while it even matters at home sized networks.
A .pkg would be way better.
Anyway, no gigantic enterprise sized OS X networks around like the Windows ones.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528367</id>
	<title>And more than that!</title>
	<author>The\_mad\_linguist</author>
	<datestamp>1246376940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Firefox 3.5, the bard class has been totally revised, and you no longer need to "intuit direction" to browse the web.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Firefox 3.5 , the bard class has been totally revised , and you no longer need to " intuit direction " to browse the web .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Firefox 3.5, the bard class has been totally revised, and you no longer need to "intuit direction" to browse the web.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28533557</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, REAL geeks ...</title>
	<author>m85476585</author>
	<datestamp>1246394580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I actually do that to browse the web on my cell phone.  Internet access is too expensive on my plan ($2/mb or $2 million to fill up my 1tb hard drive), but I have unlimited texting.  To use it, I email the URL of the page I want to my server, and the server gets the page with wget or curl, strips out any HTML, and sends it back to me 140 characters at a time.  It is quite basic right now, but I could add a lot more logic, like replying with "more" to get more than the first 5 pages.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually do that to browse the web on my cell phone .
Internet access is too expensive on my plan ( $ 2/mb or $ 2 million to fill up my 1tb hard drive ) , but I have unlimited texting .
To use it , I email the URL of the page I want to my server , and the server gets the page with wget or curl , strips out any HTML , and sends it back to me 140 characters at a time .
It is quite basic right now , but I could add a lot more logic , like replying with " more " to get more than the first 5 pages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually do that to browse the web on my cell phone.
Internet access is too expensive on my plan ($2/mb or $2 million to fill up my 1tb hard drive), but I have unlimited texting.
To use it, I email the URL of the page I want to my server, and the server gets the page with wget or curl, strips out any HTML, and sends it back to me 140 characters at a time.
It is quite basic right now, but I could add a lot more logic, like replying with "more" to get more than the first 5 pages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28532267</id>
	<title>Re:I hope they fixed printing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246389300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lol! Asshole. Blame Mozilla for your own fucking stupidity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lol !
Asshole. Blame Mozilla for your own fucking stupidity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lol!
Asshole. Blame Mozilla for your own fucking stupidity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528387</id>
	<title>Works for me</title>
	<author>Chris Pimlott</author>
	<datestamp>1246377000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Running 3.0.11 here, print dialog defaults to a real printer, as it always has.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Running 3.0.11 here , print dialog defaults to a real printer , as it always has .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Running 3.0.11 here, print dialog defaults to a real printer, as it always has.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528213</id>
	<title>AwesomeBar much more Awesomer</title>
	<author>Duositex</author>
	<datestamp>1246376340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I work in a help desk role with four other people supporting a few hundred so I was waiting to pull the trigger for the latest version because I didn't want to lose my workhorse browser in action. But when I started reading about all of the new features I decided I'd dive right into the release candidate given that the headache of backing up profiles and such between upgrades seems to have gone away. Now that the updates to Firefox come automatically and only require a restart of the browser I figured there wasn't really a good reason to wait.
I'm very happy with this decision so far. I can't say for sure if it seems faster or not on this setup, but I *can* say for certain that the new features are quite welcome. Especially being able to filter the junk that pops up in the awesome bar with some simple characters. It finally gave me some motivation to properly tag and organize the menagerie of "Unsorted Bookmarks" in Places. I'm quite pleased with the result and I'm already saving a lot of time when revisiting resources related to the support work I do. The only feature that's still missing from the browser that I find myself wishing it has is an advanced interface for creating the smart folders other than the "Save" button in Places.
The long and short: If you hated the awesome bar before and turned it off, give it another shot in 3.5 and see if the new features make it bearable. Thumbs up Mozilla.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I work in a help desk role with four other people supporting a few hundred so I was waiting to pull the trigger for the latest version because I did n't want to lose my workhorse browser in action .
But when I started reading about all of the new features I decided I 'd dive right into the release candidate given that the headache of backing up profiles and such between upgrades seems to have gone away .
Now that the updates to Firefox come automatically and only require a restart of the browser I figured there was n't really a good reason to wait .
I 'm very happy with this decision so far .
I ca n't say for sure if it seems faster or not on this setup , but I * can * say for certain that the new features are quite welcome .
Especially being able to filter the junk that pops up in the awesome bar with some simple characters .
It finally gave me some motivation to properly tag and organize the menagerie of " Unsorted Bookmarks " in Places .
I 'm quite pleased with the result and I 'm already saving a lot of time when revisiting resources related to the support work I do .
The only feature that 's still missing from the browser that I find myself wishing it has is an advanced interface for creating the smart folders other than the " Save " button in Places .
The long and short : If you hated the awesome bar before and turned it off , give it another shot in 3.5 and see if the new features make it bearable .
Thumbs up Mozilla .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work in a help desk role with four other people supporting a few hundred so I was waiting to pull the trigger for the latest version because I didn't want to lose my workhorse browser in action.
But when I started reading about all of the new features I decided I'd dive right into the release candidate given that the headache of backing up profiles and such between upgrades seems to have gone away.
Now that the updates to Firefox come automatically and only require a restart of the browser I figured there wasn't really a good reason to wait.
I'm very happy with this decision so far.
I can't say for sure if it seems faster or not on this setup, but I *can* say for certain that the new features are quite welcome.
Especially being able to filter the junk that pops up in the awesome bar with some simple characters.
It finally gave me some motivation to properly tag and organize the menagerie of "Unsorted Bookmarks" in Places.
I'm quite pleased with the result and I'm already saving a lot of time when revisiting resources related to the support work I do.
The only feature that's still missing from the browser that I find myself wishing it has is an advanced interface for creating the smart folders other than the "Save" button in Places.
The long and short: If you hated the awesome bar before and turned it off, give it another shot in 3.5 and see if the new features make it bearable.
Thumbs up Mozilla.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28532189</id>
	<title>Re:Non-profit?</title>
	<author>arevos</author>
	<datestamp>1246388940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Since firefox is funded almost entirely by Google, it's a bit of misdirection to claim that it's "run by a nonprofit organization".</p></div><p>From Wikipedia:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>A nonprofit organization is an organization that does not distribute its surplus funds to owners or shareholders, but instead uses them to help pursue its goals.</p></div><p>Being funded by Google doesn't mean that Mozilla isn't a nonprofit organisation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since firefox is funded almost entirely by Google , it 's a bit of misdirection to claim that it 's " run by a nonprofit organization " .From Wikipedia : A nonprofit organization is an organization that does not distribute its surplus funds to owners or shareholders , but instead uses them to help pursue its goals.Being funded by Google does n't mean that Mozilla is n't a nonprofit organisation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since firefox is funded almost entirely by Google, it's a bit of misdirection to claim that it's "run by a nonprofit organization".From Wikipedia:A nonprofit organization is an organization that does not distribute its surplus funds to owners or shareholders, but instead uses them to help pursue its goals.Being funded by Google doesn't mean that Mozilla isn't a nonprofit organisation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528253</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28532175</id>
	<title>Re:I hope they fixed printing</title>
	<author>CopaceticOpus</author>
	<datestamp>1246388940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have seen that problem as well. Very annoying.</p><p>Another problem is that you can do print preview, and you can choose to print a selection... but you can't preview what will print if you print only the selection. This would be very useful when you want to make sure the selection will print as you expect, or if you want to scale the print to fit on a certain number of pages.</p><p>Even better, what if they made the print preview interactive? The user could cut out blocks they don't want to print, or select certain sections to print. Currently, I accomplish this by using Firebug to delete unwanted structures from the page before I print.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have seen that problem as well .
Very annoying.Another problem is that you can do print preview , and you can choose to print a selection... but you ca n't preview what will print if you print only the selection .
This would be very useful when you want to make sure the selection will print as you expect , or if you want to scale the print to fit on a certain number of pages.Even better , what if they made the print preview interactive ?
The user could cut out blocks they do n't want to print , or select certain sections to print .
Currently , I accomplish this by using Firebug to delete unwanted structures from the page before I print .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have seen that problem as well.
Very annoying.Another problem is that you can do print preview, and you can choose to print a selection... but you can't preview what will print if you print only the selection.
This would be very useful when you want to make sure the selection will print as you expect, or if you want to scale the print to fit on a certain number of pages.Even better, what if they made the print preview interactive?
The user could cut out blocks they don't want to print, or select certain sections to print.
Currently, I accomplish this by using Firebug to delete unwanted structures from the page before I print.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528547</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28531721</id>
	<title>Re:Competition</title>
	<author>99BottlesOfBeerInMyF</author>
	<datestamp>1246387380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Huh? Is there somebody out there yelling, "No! We need one browser! Competition is evil"?</p></div><p>I think his name is Ballmer.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If so, I haven't run across them.</p></div><p>That's good... he throws chairs.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh ?
Is there somebody out there yelling , " No !
We need one browser !
Competition is evil " ? I think his name is Ballmer.If so , I have n't run across them.That 's good... he throws chairs .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh?
Is there somebody out there yelling, "No!
We need one browser!
Competition is evil"?I think his name is Ballmer.If so, I haven't run across them.That's good... he throws chairs.
:)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528579</id>
	<title>Re:I hope they fixed printing</title>
	<author>A. B3ttik</author>
	<datestamp>1246377660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a setting in your OS, dude, not in FF. Like most programs, FF just implements the existing PRINT framework.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a setting in your OS , dude , not in FF .
Like most programs , FF just implements the existing PRINT framework .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a setting in your OS, dude, not in FF.
Like most programs, FF just implements the existing PRINT framework.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528461</id>
	<title>Re:HTML 5 and Javascript</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246377300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will Flash videos play if I have Flash plug-in turned off? Oops! Oh well, fuck Flash then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will Flash videos play if I have Flash plug-in turned off ?
Oops ! Oh well , fuck Flash then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will Flash videos play if I have Flash plug-in turned off?
Oops! Oh well, fuck Flash then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530081</id>
	<title>Still using NCSA Mosaic</title>
	<author>slyborg</author>
	<datestamp>1246382940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed, I -am- the only one still using the Mac-only closed-source browser that invented Web browsing 5 years before iCab....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed , I -am- the only one still using the Mac-only closed-source browser that invented Web browsing 5 years before iCab... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed, I -am- the only one still using the Mac-only closed-source browser that invented Web browsing 5 years before iCab....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528329</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528073</id>
	<title>It's full of stars</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246375740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>er, there's no there there.</p><p>As of 10:30 EDT if you try to enter the 3.5 directory on a mirror site you get redirected to http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/comingsoon/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>er , there 's no there there.As of 10 : 30 EDT if you try to enter the 3.5 directory on a mirror site you get redirected to http : //www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/comingsoon/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>er, there's no there there.As of 10:30 EDT if you try to enter the 3.5 directory on a mirror site you get redirected to http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/comingsoon/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28532973</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, REAL geeks ...</title>
	<author>SpooForBrains</author>
	<datestamp>1246391820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Time management, I believe. I seem to recall reading that he finds it more convenient to read web pages at his leisure in his email than by using a regular web browser right at that moment.</p><p>Plus, he's pretty much the dictionary definition of eccentric.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time management , I believe .
I seem to recall reading that he finds it more convenient to read web pages at his leisure in his email than by using a regular web browser right at that moment.Plus , he 's pretty much the dictionary definition of eccentric .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time management, I believe.
I seem to recall reading that he finds it more convenient to read web pages at his leisure in his email than by using a regular web browser right at that moment.Plus, he's pretty much the dictionary definition of eccentric.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529303</id>
	<title>Re:Competition</title>
	<author>tibman</author>
	<datestamp>1246380480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Evolution through conflict, eh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Evolution through conflict , eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Evolution through conflict, eh?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528403</id>
	<title>Re:HTML 5 and Javascript</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246377060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And why would you have flash enabled but not javascript?  If yuou are doing ti for security reasons then you are seriously misguided.  If you are doing it for performance reasons then you are misguided as well because nothing chews cpu like flash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And why would you have flash enabled but not javascript ?
If yuou are doing ti for security reasons then you are seriously misguided .
If you are doing it for performance reasons then you are misguided as well because nothing chews cpu like flash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And why would you have flash enabled but not javascript?
If yuou are doing ti for security reasons then you are seriously misguided.
If you are doing it for performance reasons then you are misguided as well because nothing chews cpu like flash.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528233</id>
	<title>I hope they fixed printing</title>
	<author>SilverJets</author>
	<datestamp>1246376460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Somewhere in the development of Firefox 3, someone at Mozilla got the idea that printing to a file is more important, or at least as important as printing to a printer.  So now, when you click print you then have to select print to file or print to a printer, then click OK.   Very, very annoying when printing out a bunch of individual pages.  It should default to the printer with an option for printing to a file (the way it used to be in earlier versions).  Print still means "send it to the printer", printing to a file is a minor benefit at best.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somewhere in the development of Firefox 3 , someone at Mozilla got the idea that printing to a file is more important , or at least as important as printing to a printer .
So now , when you click print you then have to select print to file or print to a printer , then click OK. Very , very annoying when printing out a bunch of individual pages .
It should default to the printer with an option for printing to a file ( the way it used to be in earlier versions ) .
Print still means " send it to the printer " , printing to a file is a minor benefit at best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somewhere in the development of Firefox 3, someone at Mozilla got the idea that printing to a file is more important, or at least as important as printing to a printer.
So now, when you click print you then have to select print to file or print to a printer, then click OK.   Very, very annoying when printing out a bunch of individual pages.
It should default to the printer with an option for printing to a file (the way it used to be in earlier versions).
Print still means "send it to the printer", printing to a file is a minor benefit at best.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528097</id>
	<title>Real geeks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246375860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>use telnet for browsing the internet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>use telnet for browsing the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>use telnet for browsing the internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529899</id>
	<title>Re:Competition</title>
	<author>Overly Critical Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1246382340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a stupid comment.  Google Chrome is based on WebKit, a non-Gecko rendering engine initiated by Apple and derived from KHTML, which has nothing to do with Firefox.  It would exist with or without it.  People who "paid way too much for their computers" are still running Safari, because it's the faster, better browser, and there's a Windows version available.</p><p>Internet Explorer still commands something like 90\% of the market based on most studies, so those "browser wars" only exist in dwindling niche circles like Slashdot.  If anything, Firefox is losing the war since WebKit has been adopted by Google and is also being used on several mobile devices.  Gecko is a messy engine that few understand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a stupid comment .
Google Chrome is based on WebKit , a non-Gecko rendering engine initiated by Apple and derived from KHTML , which has nothing to do with Firefox .
It would exist with or without it .
People who " paid way too much for their computers " are still running Safari , because it 's the faster , better browser , and there 's a Windows version available.Internet Explorer still commands something like 90 \ % of the market based on most studies , so those " browser wars " only exist in dwindling niche circles like Slashdot .
If anything , Firefox is losing the war since WebKit has been adopted by Google and is also being used on several mobile devices .
Gecko is a messy engine that few understand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a stupid comment.
Google Chrome is based on WebKit, a non-Gecko rendering engine initiated by Apple and derived from KHTML, which has nothing to do with Firefox.
It would exist with or without it.
People who "paid way too much for their computers" are still running Safari, because it's the faster, better browser, and there's a Windows version available.Internet Explorer still commands something like 90\% of the market based on most studies, so those "browser wars" only exist in dwindling niche circles like Slashdot.
If anything, Firefox is losing the war since WebKit has been adopted by Google and is also being used on several mobile devices.
Gecko is a messy engine that few understand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28531111</id>
	<title>A few notes on the OS X version</title>
	<author>99BottlesOfBeerInMyF</author>
	<datestamp>1246385520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I downloaded the final version and played with it on OS X for a bit. I usually use Safari on OS X because I have a hard time getting over certain deficiencies of Firefox and Opera. The good things are javascript performance is now quite good, better than the Safari 4 release by a significant margin (although still lagging the Webkit nightlies as one would expect). It's still not there for the ACID3 test, but it's getting close. It still is a little less responsive, but nothing too significant. They haven't cloned the text box resizing feature yet, so I still need to dig up an extension to do that, and of all things basic UI components should be built in. The grammar checker does not work at all. The spelling checker fails to use the default spellchecking service, so it does not know any of the words I've trained OS X to recognize and which work in all my other programs. All the other system services are likewise unavailable.</p><p>In short, it' better in all the ways one would expect, but they've still done nothing to make it work like a truly native application which makes it a second class citizen for power users. This is sort of ironic since the plug-in extensions to Firefox normally make it ideal for power users on other platforms. It's too bad they ignore all OS wide plug-ins on OS X.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I downloaded the final version and played with it on OS X for a bit .
I usually use Safari on OS X because I have a hard time getting over certain deficiencies of Firefox and Opera .
The good things are javascript performance is now quite good , better than the Safari 4 release by a significant margin ( although still lagging the Webkit nightlies as one would expect ) .
It 's still not there for the ACID3 test , but it 's getting close .
It still is a little less responsive , but nothing too significant .
They have n't cloned the text box resizing feature yet , so I still need to dig up an extension to do that , and of all things basic UI components should be built in .
The grammar checker does not work at all .
The spelling checker fails to use the default spellchecking service , so it does not know any of the words I 've trained OS X to recognize and which work in all my other programs .
All the other system services are likewise unavailable.In short , it ' better in all the ways one would expect , but they 've still done nothing to make it work like a truly native application which makes it a second class citizen for power users .
This is sort of ironic since the plug-in extensions to Firefox normally make it ideal for power users on other platforms .
It 's too bad they ignore all OS wide plug-ins on OS X .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I downloaded the final version and played with it on OS X for a bit.
I usually use Safari on OS X because I have a hard time getting over certain deficiencies of Firefox and Opera.
The good things are javascript performance is now quite good, better than the Safari 4 release by a significant margin (although still lagging the Webkit nightlies as one would expect).
It's still not there for the ACID3 test, but it's getting close.
It still is a little less responsive, but nothing too significant.
They haven't cloned the text box resizing feature yet, so I still need to dig up an extension to do that, and of all things basic UI components should be built in.
The grammar checker does not work at all.
The spelling checker fails to use the default spellchecking service, so it does not know any of the words I've trained OS X to recognize and which work in all my other programs.
All the other system services are likewise unavailable.In short, it' better in all the ways one would expect, but they've still done nothing to make it work like a truly native application which makes it a second class citizen for power users.
This is sort of ironic since the plug-in extensions to Firefox normally make it ideal for power users on other platforms.
It's too bad they ignore all OS wide plug-ins on OS X.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28540037</id>
	<title>Re:Bloat</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1246444800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>FireFox was never lower in bloat.  If you used the entire Mozilla suite, then switched to FireFox  (Phoenix back then) then you needed more RAM, because FireFox and Thunderbird both included their own separate copies of the XUL / XPCOM runtime libraries.  The big advantage for me was that a crash in the browser stopped also killing my mail client.</htmltext>
<tokenext>FireFox was never lower in bloat .
If you used the entire Mozilla suite , then switched to FireFox ( Phoenix back then ) then you needed more RAM , because FireFox and Thunderbird both included their own separate copies of the XUL / XPCOM runtime libraries .
The big advantage for me was that a crash in the browser stopped also killing my mail client .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FireFox was never lower in bloat.
If you used the entire Mozilla suite, then switched to FireFox  (Phoenix back then) then you needed more RAM, because FireFox and Thunderbird both included their own separate copies of the XUL / XPCOM runtime libraries.
The big advantage for me was that a crash in the browser stopped also killing my mail client.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530681</id>
	<title>Re:Competition</title>
	<author>koreaman</author>
	<datestamp>1246384440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe your comment is the stupid one, both because it is factually incorrect as the other poster pointed out, and because you completely misunderstood my point. I meant to say that Firefox's explosion on the browser scene drove improvement in other browsers and even expansion of e.g. Google into the market. It did so in two ways:<br>1) By taking market share from IE and Opera, forcing the former to improve and the latter to go gratis, and<br>2) By showing people that IE could be beaten.</p><p>I never implied that Chrome was using any code developed by or submitted to the Mozilla Foundation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe your comment is the stupid one , both because it is factually incorrect as the other poster pointed out , and because you completely misunderstood my point .
I meant to say that Firefox 's explosion on the browser scene drove improvement in other browsers and even expansion of e.g .
Google into the market .
It did so in two ways : 1 ) By taking market share from IE and Opera , forcing the former to improve and the latter to go gratis , and2 ) By showing people that IE could be beaten.I never implied that Chrome was using any code developed by or submitted to the Mozilla Foundation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe your comment is the stupid one, both because it is factually incorrect as the other poster pointed out, and because you completely misunderstood my point.
I meant to say that Firefox's explosion on the browser scene drove improvement in other browsers and even expansion of e.g.
Google into the market.
It did so in two ways:1) By taking market share from IE and Opera, forcing the former to improve and the latter to go gratis, and2) By showing people that IE could be beaten.I never implied that Chrome was using any code developed by or submitted to the Mozilla Foundation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528175</id>
	<title>What about Slashdot?</title>
	<author>macbeth66</author>
	<datestamp>1246376160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the new release is sure to prompt Web designers to create pages tailored to the Web's new language</p></div><p>Although, I would be happy if Slashdot would work right with the existing standards.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the new release is sure to prompt Web designers to create pages tailored to the Web 's new languageAlthough , I would be happy if Slashdot would work right with the existing standards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the new release is sure to prompt Web designers to create pages tailored to the Web's new languageAlthough, I would be happy if Slashdot would work right with the existing standards.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28533379</id>
	<title>Re:I hope they fixed printing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246393740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You might notice that every application on that machine behaves the same way. It's and OS setting. l2default printer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You might notice that every application on that machine behaves the same way .
It 's and OS setting .
l2default printer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You might notice that every application on that machine behaves the same way.
It's and OS setting.
l2default printer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528529</id>
	<title>Huge update</title>
	<author>superFoieGras</author>
	<datestamp>1246377480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I always have wondered: How does such a wolrdwide update work ?

Supposedly Mozilla is non-profit, so how do they manage extra bandwidth for the huge load of downloads they are going to get in the next few days ?
I'm thinking about the Skype crash, where everyone updated and reconnected at the same time and killed their servers for two days.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I always have wondered : How does such a wolrdwide update work ?
Supposedly Mozilla is non-profit , so how do they manage extra bandwidth for the huge load of downloads they are going to get in the next few days ?
I 'm thinking about the Skype crash , where everyone updated and reconnected at the same time and killed their servers for two days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always have wondered: How does such a wolrdwide update work ?
Supposedly Mozilla is non-profit, so how do they manage extra bandwidth for the huge load of downloads they are going to get in the next few days ?
I'm thinking about the Skype crash, where everyone updated and reconnected at the same time and killed their servers for two days.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28533365</id>
	<title>Private browsing mode</title>
	<author>l0cust</author>
	<datestamp>1246393620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We knew it was coming. After chrome's incognito mode, everyone knew that people like to watch pr0n without worrying about the sites showing up in the awesome/whatever-the-fuck-is-the-name-bar! I have a shortcut (chrome -incognito) just for that reason but now it seems like I can do all that right from Firefox!
<br> <br>
It's good but, IMHO, not perfect though. The private browsing mode saves+hides your current tabs and starts a new session in the new mode, and when you switch it off, <i>it loads all those tabs all over again!</i> It's perfect for casual users but for freaks like me who have close to 100 tabs open on an average, it's not the right way to go. I would have preferred it to be done the way chrome handles it - open the private mode in a completely new window and run both the sessions simultaneously depending upon which window the user is browsing on. I hope they tweak it soon or someone makes an extension to run it that way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We knew it was coming .
After chrome 's incognito mode , everyone knew that people like to watch pr0n without worrying about the sites showing up in the awesome/whatever-the-fuck-is-the-name-bar !
I have a shortcut ( chrome -incognito ) just for that reason but now it seems like I can do all that right from Firefox !
It 's good but , IMHO , not perfect though .
The private browsing mode saves + hides your current tabs and starts a new session in the new mode , and when you switch it off , it loads all those tabs all over again !
It 's perfect for casual users but for freaks like me who have close to 100 tabs open on an average , it 's not the right way to go .
I would have preferred it to be done the way chrome handles it - open the private mode in a completely new window and run both the sessions simultaneously depending upon which window the user is browsing on .
I hope they tweak it soon or someone makes an extension to run it that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We knew it was coming.
After chrome's incognito mode, everyone knew that people like to watch pr0n without worrying about the sites showing up in the awesome/whatever-the-fuck-is-the-name-bar!
I have a shortcut (chrome -incognito) just for that reason but now it seems like I can do all that right from Firefox!
It's good but, IMHO, not perfect though.
The private browsing mode saves+hides your current tabs and starts a new session in the new mode, and when you switch it off, it loads all those tabs all over again!
It's perfect for casual users but for freaks like me who have close to 100 tabs open on an average, it's not the right way to go.
I would have preferred it to be done the way chrome handles it - open the private mode in a completely new window and run both the sessions simultaneously depending upon which window the user is browsing on.
I hope they tweak it soon or someone makes an extension to run it that way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528253</id>
	<title>Non-profit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246376520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since firefox is funded almost entirely by Google, it's a bit of misdirection to claim that it's "run by a nonprofit organization". Yes, that claim is technically true, but it hides the truth about how Firefox is really kept afloat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since firefox is funded almost entirely by Google , it 's a bit of misdirection to claim that it 's " run by a nonprofit organization " .
Yes , that claim is technically true , but it hides the truth about how Firefox is really kept afloat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since firefox is funded almost entirely by Google, it's a bit of misdirection to claim that it's "run by a nonprofit organization".
Yes, that claim is technically true, but it hides the truth about how Firefox is really kept afloat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530827</id>
	<title>Really, really, really slow to start??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246384800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just did the upgrade to 3.5 and I'm wondering if I'm the only one seeing a problem with it being very slow to start execution - or at least become visible.  According to my watch it's taking a shade less than 4 minutes (four minutes!) to show itself after clicking on the desktop icon.  The WinXP Task Mgr processes tab shows the firefox process using 40\% to 50\% of the CPU for that entire time while not showing on the application tab.  After it finally starts displaying the speed seems fine.  WinXP, all updates, single 3GHz processor, 2Gb memory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just did the upgrade to 3.5 and I 'm wondering if I 'm the only one seeing a problem with it being very slow to start execution - or at least become visible .
According to my watch it 's taking a shade less than 4 minutes ( four minutes !
) to show itself after clicking on the desktop icon .
The WinXP Task Mgr processes tab shows the firefox process using 40 \ % to 50 \ % of the CPU for that entire time while not showing on the application tab .
After it finally starts displaying the speed seems fine .
WinXP , all updates , single 3GHz processor , 2Gb memory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just did the upgrade to 3.5 and I'm wondering if I'm the only one seeing a problem with it being very slow to start execution - or at least become visible.
According to my watch it's taking a shade less than 4 minutes (four minutes!
) to show itself after clicking on the desktop icon.
The WinXP Task Mgr processes tab shows the firefox process using 40\% to 50\% of the CPU for that entire time while not showing on the application tab.
After it finally starts displaying the speed seems fine.
WinXP, all updates, single 3GHz processor, 2Gb memory.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529169</id>
	<title>Re:Acid</title>
	<author>Tom9729</author>
	<datestamp>1246380000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A little OT, but if you want to see something fun try acid3 in IE6.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A little OT , but if you want to see something fun try acid3 in IE6 .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A little OT, but if you want to see something fun try acid3 in IE6.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528605</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28538101</id>
	<title>Re:Tilting at windmills...</title>
	<author>d3ac0n</author>
	<datestamp>1246377900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nope.</p><p>Although you can get MUCH closer to normal (normal =  pre 3.0) URLbar behavior with 3.5 by setting various options in about:config.</p><p>Frankly, I still think it sucks.  Even though it's better, they should have stuck with a normal URLbar.  I'm waiting for someone to come out with a total conversion add-on that simply DELETES the "awesome bar" code from your install of FF 3.x and installs the old 2.0 code.</p><p>Not only would the browser be significantly faster, we might get a sane URL bar back again!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope.Although you can get MUCH closer to normal ( normal = pre 3.0 ) URLbar behavior with 3.5 by setting various options in about : config.Frankly , I still think it sucks .
Even though it 's better , they should have stuck with a normal URLbar .
I 'm waiting for someone to come out with a total conversion add-on that simply DELETES the " awesome bar " code from your install of FF 3.x and installs the old 2.0 code.Not only would the browser be significantly faster , we might get a sane URL bar back again !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope.Although you can get MUCH closer to normal (normal =  pre 3.0) URLbar behavior with 3.5 by setting various options in about:config.Frankly, I still think it sucks.
Even though it's better, they should have stuck with a normal URLbar.
I'm waiting for someone to come out with a total conversion add-on that simply DELETES the "awesome bar" code from your install of FF 3.x and installs the old 2.0 code.Not only would the browser be significantly faster, we might get a sane URL bar back again!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530149</id>
	<title>Memory Problems Confirmed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246383180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love it when people claim something doesn't have certain problems, then their next versions says they fixed those problems they had claimed not to have.</p><p>Firefox does this.  Under the new performance features it says: "With a new management function in place, Firefox keeps memory usage under control. The XPCOM cycle collector continuously cleans up unused memory. Plus, hundreds of memory leaks have been remedied."</p><p>How can they fix hundreds of memory leaks if the last version didn't have any?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love it when people claim something does n't have certain problems , then their next versions says they fixed those problems they had claimed not to have.Firefox does this .
Under the new performance features it says : " With a new management function in place , Firefox keeps memory usage under control .
The XPCOM cycle collector continuously cleans up unused memory .
Plus , hundreds of memory leaks have been remedied .
" How can they fix hundreds of memory leaks if the last version did n't have any ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love it when people claim something doesn't have certain problems, then their next versions says they fixed those problems they had claimed not to have.Firefox does this.
Under the new performance features it says: "With a new management function in place, Firefox keeps memory usage under control.
The XPCOM cycle collector continuously cleans up unused memory.
Plus, hundreds of memory leaks have been remedied.
"How can they fix hundreds of memory leaks if the last version didn't have any?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530975</id>
	<title>Re:As usual with new Firefox releases...</title>
	<author>jc42</author>
	<datestamp>1246385160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just for yuks, when I reached a resting point in what I was doing, I decided to kill off Firefox and restart it, clicking on the "Restore Previous Session" button when it appeared.  Before killing it, the numbers on this Macbook Pro with 4 GB memory were RSIZE=338MB, VSIZE=1.95GB.  After restarting and letting the windows stabilize, the numbers are now RSIZE=190MB, VSIZE=1.15GB.  Those differences (RSIZE=148MB, VSIZE=.80GB) seem to me to be fairly indicative of a memory-management problem of some sort.  But of course I don't know much about the inner details.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just for yuks , when I reached a resting point in what I was doing , I decided to kill off Firefox and restart it , clicking on the " Restore Previous Session " button when it appeared .
Before killing it , the numbers on this Macbook Pro with 4 GB memory were RSIZE = 338MB , VSIZE = 1.95GB .
After restarting and letting the windows stabilize , the numbers are now RSIZE = 190MB , VSIZE = 1.15GB .
Those differences ( RSIZE = 148MB , VSIZE = .80GB ) seem to me to be fairly indicative of a memory-management problem of some sort .
But of course I do n't know much about the inner details .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just for yuks, when I reached a resting point in what I was doing, I decided to kill off Firefox and restart it, clicking on the "Restore Previous Session" button when it appeared.
Before killing it, the numbers on this Macbook Pro with 4 GB memory were RSIZE=338MB, VSIZE=1.95GB.
After restarting and letting the windows stabilize, the numbers are now RSIZE=190MB, VSIZE=1.15GB.
Those differences (RSIZE=148MB, VSIZE=.80GB) seem to me to be fairly indicative of a memory-management problem of some sort.
But of course I don't know much about the inner details.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528693</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529949</id>
	<title>1 minute upgrade</title>
	<author>iplayfast</author>
	<datestamp>1246382460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That worked out really well. I read the blurb, it said it was available. Did the check for updates, it downloaded and restarted, and then I went into the story.</p><p>All upgrades should be so easy!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That worked out really well .
I read the blurb , it said it was available .
Did the check for updates , it downloaded and restarted , and then I went into the story.All upgrades should be so easy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That worked out really well.
I read the blurb, it said it was available.
Did the check for updates, it downloaded and restarted, and then I went into the story.All upgrades should be so easy!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528547</id>
	<title>Re:I hope they fixed printing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246377540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Printing is broken, but not for the reason you say. I've never seen that problem.</p><p>The problem with printing is that 50\% of the time, the page is cut off on the right side so you don't get everything. Firefox developers don't pay attention to printing. I use another browser for printing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Printing is broken , but not for the reason you say .
I 've never seen that problem.The problem with printing is that 50 \ % of the time , the page is cut off on the right side so you do n't get everything .
Firefox developers do n't pay attention to printing .
I use another browser for printing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Printing is broken, but not for the reason you say.
I've never seen that problem.The problem with printing is that 50\% of the time, the page is cut off on the right side so you don't get everything.
Firefox developers don't pay attention to printing.
I use another browser for printing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28533395</id>
	<title>Swap is not for SSDs</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1246393740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Are you including virtual memory in that figure? I can't seem to fun FF without at least 100MB of physical memory, but I never see the sum of physical and virtual go over 600MB</p></div><p>How often does the operating system write to the virtual memory allocated to Firefox when one runs it on a low-cost subnotebook PC with a 4 GB SSD?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you including virtual memory in that figure ?
I ca n't seem to fun FF without at least 100MB of physical memory , but I never see the sum of physical and virtual go over 600MBHow often does the operating system write to the virtual memory allocated to Firefox when one runs it on a low-cost subnotebook PC with a 4 GB SSD ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you including virtual memory in that figure?
I can't seem to fun FF without at least 100MB of physical memory, but I never see the sum of physical and virtual go over 600MBHow often does the operating system write to the virtual memory allocated to Firefox when one runs it on a low-cost subnotebook PC with a 4 GB SSD?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528085</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28547295</id>
	<title>Re:I hope they fixed printing</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1246478820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; Stop wasting trees. There is no reason to print a web page. Ever. Stop it.<br><br>Yeah, I used to think that way.<br><br>And then I got my current job, and started working with normal, non-IT-industry users.<br><br>I know, for IT people, it doesn't make sense.  I mean, printing it is unnecessary and just creates extra physical clutter, a piece of paper you're just going to misplace.  If you just save the link (possibly someplace online, like your private scratchpad at Perlmonks), you can go there any time, from anywhere.  Why would you ever want it on paper?<br><br>But it's different for normal users, because (Are you sitting down?  Mind your blood pressure, this may be a bit of a shock...) they don't have the internet available everywhere all the time.<br><br>Really, no fooling.<br><br>They don't have handheld devices that can browse the web.  They don't have the internet on every floor (much less every room) of their house.  They don't have it in their car.  The computer in the house (there's never more than one) is probably shared between several family members, and even if nobody else is using it, it still takes at least five minutes, usually more like ten, to get something off the internet, because they have to wait for the computer (which is old and slow and never had enough RAM in the first place because it was a cheaper model) to boot up, then wait for the internet connection to dial, then try to find the site...<br><br>That's assuming they *have* the internet at home; a double-digit percentage of the population doesn't.<br><br>Some people only have internet access at a friend's house, or at the public library.<br><br>Many only have internet at work.  They can't take a web page home, and even if it's needed for a job-related reason, they can't take it with them to meetings, or when they have job duties away from their regular desk -- or maybe they can't take it to the desk, if they have internet at a shared workstation, which is common.  They can't take a website and show it to a coworker, or the boss.<br><br>So they print the web page (or the email message, or whatever) so that they can have continued access to it when they walk away from the computer.  They want to take it with them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Stop wasting trees .
There is no reason to print a web page .
Ever. Stop it.Yeah , I used to think that way.And then I got my current job , and started working with normal , non-IT-industry users.I know , for IT people , it does n't make sense .
I mean , printing it is unnecessary and just creates extra physical clutter , a piece of paper you 're just going to misplace .
If you just save the link ( possibly someplace online , like your private scratchpad at Perlmonks ) , you can go there any time , from anywhere .
Why would you ever want it on paper ? But it 's different for normal users , because ( Are you sitting down ?
Mind your blood pressure , this may be a bit of a shock... ) they do n't have the internet available everywhere all the time.Really , no fooling.They do n't have handheld devices that can browse the web .
They do n't have the internet on every floor ( much less every room ) of their house .
They do n't have it in their car .
The computer in the house ( there 's never more than one ) is probably shared between several family members , and even if nobody else is using it , it still takes at least five minutes , usually more like ten , to get something off the internet , because they have to wait for the computer ( which is old and slow and never had enough RAM in the first place because it was a cheaper model ) to boot up , then wait for the internet connection to dial , then try to find the site...That 's assuming they * have * the internet at home ; a double-digit percentage of the population does n't.Some people only have internet access at a friend 's house , or at the public library.Many only have internet at work .
They ca n't take a web page home , and even if it 's needed for a job-related reason , they ca n't take it with them to meetings , or when they have job duties away from their regular desk -- or maybe they ca n't take it to the desk , if they have internet at a shared workstation , which is common .
They ca n't take a website and show it to a coworker , or the boss.So they print the web page ( or the email message , or whatever ) so that they can have continued access to it when they walk away from the computer .
They want to take it with them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Stop wasting trees.
There is no reason to print a web page.
Ever. Stop it.Yeah, I used to think that way.And then I got my current job, and started working with normal, non-IT-industry users.I know, for IT people, it doesn't make sense.
I mean, printing it is unnecessary and just creates extra physical clutter, a piece of paper you're just going to misplace.
If you just save the link (possibly someplace online, like your private scratchpad at Perlmonks), you can go there any time, from anywhere.
Why would you ever want it on paper?But it's different for normal users, because (Are you sitting down?
Mind your blood pressure, this may be a bit of a shock...) they don't have the internet available everywhere all the time.Really, no fooling.They don't have handheld devices that can browse the web.
They don't have the internet on every floor (much less every room) of their house.
They don't have it in their car.
The computer in the house (there's never more than one) is probably shared between several family members, and even if nobody else is using it, it still takes at least five minutes, usually more like ten, to get something off the internet, because they have to wait for the computer (which is old and slow and never had enough RAM in the first place because it was a cheaper model) to boot up, then wait for the internet connection to dial, then try to find the site...That's assuming they *have* the internet at home; a double-digit percentage of the population doesn't.Some people only have internet access at a friend's house, or at the public library.Many only have internet at work.
They can't take a web page home, and even if it's needed for a job-related reason, they can't take it with them to meetings, or when they have job duties away from their regular desk -- or maybe they can't take it to the desk, if they have internet at a shared workstation, which is common.
They can't take a website and show it to a coworker, or the boss.So they print the web page (or the email message, or whatever) so that they can have continued access to it when they walk away from the computer.
They want to take it with them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28535031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529959</id>
	<title>Re:One new feature I'm pleased about....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246382520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OH HOW INNOVATIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OH HOW INNOVATIVE ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OH HOW INNOVATIVE!!!!!!!!!!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529119</id>
	<title>Re:Released!?!!</title>
	<author>sunwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1246379760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's out if you manually check for updates too.  Did they change the font rendering?  Either I'm suffering from a placebo effect from my shiny new FF3.5 or everything's prettier.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's out if you manually check for updates too .
Did they change the font rendering ?
Either I 'm suffering from a placebo effect from my shiny new FF3.5 or everything 's prettier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's out if you manually check for updates too.
Did they change the font rendering?
Either I'm suffering from a placebo effect from my shiny new FF3.5 or everything's prettier.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530339</id>
	<title>Video support seems excellent</title>
	<author>Front Line Assembly</author>
	<datestamp>1246383600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just tested firefox 3.5 (or actually started using), and the video mode seems excellent.<br>No flash or anything else and seems to work splendidly. I can't imagine why anybody would be against this (I mean users, I know several companies that of course oppose anything they can't control).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just tested firefox 3.5 ( or actually started using ) , and the video mode seems excellent.No flash or anything else and seems to work splendidly .
I ca n't imagine why anybody would be against this ( I mean users , I know several companies that of course oppose anything they ca n't control ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just tested firefox 3.5 (or actually started using), and the video mode seems excellent.No flash or anything else and seems to work splendidly.
I can't imagine why anybody would be against this (I mean users, I know several companies that of course oppose anything they can't control).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28540019</id>
	<title>Re:Don't you mean: "...sure NOT to prompt..."</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1246444620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The web was built around the idea of graceful fallback.  Any browser is allowed (and expected) to ignore any tags you don't understand.  A well-designed web site will still render in TBL's original WorldWideWeb, it just won't look the same.  My site, for example, uses the text shadow attribute on headings which, when I wrote it, only worked in Safari (not sure if it works elsewhere now).  People who view the site in another browser don't see shadows on the headings, but they still see the text.  The site looks correct in all browsers, but it looks better in some than others.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The web was built around the idea of graceful fallback .
Any browser is allowed ( and expected ) to ignore any tags you do n't understand .
A well-designed web site will still render in TBL 's original WorldWideWeb , it just wo n't look the same .
My site , for example , uses the text shadow attribute on headings which , when I wrote it , only worked in Safari ( not sure if it works elsewhere now ) .
People who view the site in another browser do n't see shadows on the headings , but they still see the text .
The site looks correct in all browsers , but it looks better in some than others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The web was built around the idea of graceful fallback.
Any browser is allowed (and expected) to ignore any tags you don't understand.
A well-designed web site will still render in TBL's original WorldWideWeb, it just won't look the same.
My site, for example, uses the text shadow attribute on headings which, when I wrote it, only worked in Safari (not sure if it works elsewhere now).
People who view the site in another browser don't see shadows on the headings, but they still see the text.
The site looks correct in all browsers, but it looks better in some than others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528305</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530993</id>
	<title>Acid Tests</title>
	<author>krygny</author>
	<datestamp>1246385220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Looks like everybody's trying out their new installations on the <a href="http://www.acidtests.org/" title="acidtests.org">Acid Tests</a> [acidtests.org] 'cause it's<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.'d.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like everybody 's trying out their new installations on the Acid Tests [ acidtests.org ] 'cause it 's / .
'd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like everybody's trying out their new installations on the Acid Tests [acidtests.org] 'cause it's /.
'd.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28532979</id>
	<title>Re:Competition</title>
	<author>node 3</author>
	<datestamp>1246391880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Huh? Is there somebody out there yelling, "No! We need one browser! Competition is evil"?</p></div><p>I think his name is Ballmer.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If so, I haven't run across them.</p></div><p>That's good... he throws chairs.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div><p>It was much easier to deal with him back when he used to just roll barrels at you...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh ?
Is there somebody out there yelling , " No !
We need one browser !
Competition is evil " ? I think his name is Ballmer.If so , I have n't run across them.That 's good... he throws chairs .
: ) It was much easier to deal with him back when he used to just roll barrels at you.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh?
Is there somebody out there yelling, "No!
We need one browser!
Competition is evil"?I think his name is Ballmer.If so, I haven't run across them.That's good... he throws chairs.
:)It was much easier to deal with him back when he used to just roll barrels at you...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28531721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28534045</id>
	<title>Re:still using iCab ;-)</title>
	<author>Alaska Jack</author>
	<datestamp>1246353300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Probably, but I think I will download a fresh copy and give it a spin. I was a huge iCab fan back when it first came out... even before tabbed browsing was invented, it had this "open link in new window behind current window" ability that was so obvious to me, I couldn't understand why IE couldn't do that. Plus it had a great little community of users.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; - AJ</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably , but I think I will download a fresh copy and give it a spin .
I was a huge iCab fan back when it first came out... even before tabbed browsing was invented , it had this " open link in new window behind current window " ability that was so obvious to me , I could n't understand why IE could n't do that .
Plus it had a great little community of users .
      - AJ</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably, but I think I will download a fresh copy and give it a spin.
I was a huge iCab fan back when it first came out... even before tabbed browsing was invented, it had this "open link in new window behind current window" ability that was so obvious to me, I couldn't understand why IE couldn't do that.
Plus it had a great little community of users.
      - AJ</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528329</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28546901</id>
	<title>Re:Tilting at windmills...</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1246477500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, you could install Seamonkey...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , you could install Seamonkey.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, you could install Seamonkey...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28531507</id>
	<title>Disabling font smoothing on Linux?</title>
	<author>gerkk</author>
	<datestamp>1246386600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder if there is any possibility to turn off (forced) font smoothing in Firefox 3.5 on Linux.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if there is any possibility to turn off ( forced ) font smoothing in Firefox 3.5 on Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if there is any possibility to turn off (forced) font smoothing in Firefox 3.5 on Linux.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528947</id>
	<title>100\% cpu after page has loaded</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246379100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>meh, i get 100\% cpu usage <i>after</i> the page has loaded on Firefox for 20secs, disabled all plugins/addons still persists</p><p>i guess they just moved the memory usage problems to the CPU<br>oh well, back to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.11 i go</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>meh , i get 100 \ % cpu usage after the page has loaded on Firefox for 20secs , disabled all plugins/addons still persistsi guess they just moved the memory usage problems to the CPUoh well , back to .11 i go</tokentext>
<sentencetext>meh, i get 100\% cpu usage after the page has loaded on Firefox for 20secs, disabled all plugins/addons still persistsi guess they just moved the memory usage problems to the CPUoh well, back to .11 i go</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530687</id>
	<title>Tilting at windmills...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246384440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know it's a real long shot, but I don't suppose they added an option to turn off the awesomebar?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know it 's a real long shot , but I do n't suppose they added an option to turn off the awesomebar ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know it's a real long shot, but I don't suppose they added an option to turn off the awesomebar?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528843</id>
	<title>3.5 has officially launched now</title>
	<author>117</author>
	<datestamp>1246378740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you go to either mozilla.com or getfirefox.com they now offer Firefox 3.5 as their main offering, not a Release Candidate</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you go to either mozilla.com or getfirefox.com they now offer Firefox 3.5 as their main offering , not a Release Candidate</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you go to either mozilla.com or getfirefox.com they now offer Firefox 3.5 as their main offering, not a Release Candidate</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28531091</id>
	<title>Re:Non-profit?</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1246385460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Since firefox is funded almost entirely by Google, it's a bit of misdirection to claim that it's "run by a nonprofit organization".</p></div><p>How does taking Google money make Mozilla Foundation not-nonprofit? Being nonprofit means you don't pay your owners profits. It doesn't mean you can't have income. In point of fact, many nonprofits have some kind of <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=nonprofit+commercial+ventureincome-generating" title="google.com">.</a> [google.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since firefox is funded almost entirely by Google , it 's a bit of misdirection to claim that it 's " run by a nonprofit organization " .How does taking Google money make Mozilla Foundation not-nonprofit ?
Being nonprofit means you do n't pay your owners profits .
It does n't mean you ca n't have income .
In point of fact , many nonprofits have some kind of .
[ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since firefox is funded almost entirely by Google, it's a bit of misdirection to claim that it's "run by a nonprofit organization".How does taking Google money make Mozilla Foundation not-nonprofit?
Being nonprofit means you don't pay your owners profits.
It doesn't mean you can't have income.
In point of fact, many nonprofits have some kind of .
[google.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528253</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529183</id>
	<title>Re:One new feature I'm pleased about....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246380060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So... what's the about:config to turn it OFF?. I can type faster than I can press the button so Ctrl-T works perfectly fine for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So... what 's the about : config to turn it OFF ? .
I can type faster than I can press the button so Ctrl-T works perfectly fine for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So... what's the about:config to turn it OFF?.
I can type faster than I can press the button so Ctrl-T works perfectly fine for me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528719</id>
	<title>Re:HTML 5 and Javascript</title>
	<author>SatanicPuppy</author>
	<datestamp>1246378200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shrug. I block flash too, so what's the difference? Flash player is as big a potential security exploit as javascript.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shrug .
I block flash too , so what 's the difference ?
Flash player is as big a potential security exploit as javascript .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shrug.
I block flash too, so what's the difference?
Flash player is as big a potential security exploit as javascript.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529371</id>
	<title>Explain to me again why this is not Evil</title>
	<author>Saint Stephen</author>
	<datestamp>1246380720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, at one time, there were standards around CSS and DOM being implemented, and Microsoft implemented a version of those standards before they were standards, and became the Defacto Quirks Mode way things were done for a long time, and that was deemed Evil.</p><p>Now there are standards around HTML5 being proposed, but probably 10 years off, or at least way off, and Firefox and Google are implementing a version of these standars before they are standards, and are trying to become the Defactor Quirks Mode way things are done for a long time, and that is deemed Good.</p><p>If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , at one time , there were standards around CSS and DOM being implemented , and Microsoft implemented a version of those standards before they were standards , and became the Defacto Quirks Mode way things were done for a long time , and that was deemed Evil.Now there are standards around HTML5 being proposed , but probably 10 years off , or at least way off , and Firefox and Google are implementing a version of these standars before they are standards , and are trying to become the Defactor Quirks Mode way things are done for a long time , and that is deemed Good.If it quacks like a duck , it 's a duck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, at one time, there were standards around CSS and DOM being implemented, and Microsoft implemented a version of those standards before they were standards, and became the Defacto Quirks Mode way things were done for a long time, and that was deemed Evil.Now there are standards around HTML5 being proposed, but probably 10 years off, or at least way off, and Firefox and Google are implementing a version of these standars before they are standards, and are trying to become the Defactor Quirks Mode way things are done for a long time, and that is deemed Good.If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28533395
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28532127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530741
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528549
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28532677
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28540011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28535341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28533379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28534813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529965
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529077
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28533225
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28533557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28540083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28546901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28532189
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528305
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28536189
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28532197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529123
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28540037
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28546717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528305
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28540019
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28538101
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528719
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28542279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28532879
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28531091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528767
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28534045
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28534945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28546851
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28535475
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28539983
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528403
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529775
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28531721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28532979
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28538671
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28531273
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529631
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28546797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530909
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28532267
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528305
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28534321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528315
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528251
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529991
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530609
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529119
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528579
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28535031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28547295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528387
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28532973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28532431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28535533
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28532175
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28536553
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528951
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28535663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1353240_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1353240.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528305
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28540019
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28534321
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28536189
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1353240.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528585
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28535475
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530609
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28535663
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530817
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28531721
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28532979
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529303
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28534813
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28531273
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529899
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530899
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530681
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28532127
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1353240.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528003
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528085
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528693
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530975
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28533395
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1353240.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530687
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28536553
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28538101
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28546901
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28540011
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1353240.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528073
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528625
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1353240.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28531111
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1353240.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528961
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529959
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529183
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1353240.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528947
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1353240.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528367
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1353240.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528097
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528321
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529649
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28532973
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28533557
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28532879
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528389
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528757
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529631
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28532677
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529483
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528335
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1353240.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528339
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28540037
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28542279
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1353240.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528843
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530627
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528999
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1353240.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528337
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528997
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529937
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530741
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1353240.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530827
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1353240.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530339
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1353240.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28531507
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1353240.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528253
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28532189
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528549
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528893
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28539983
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28531091
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1353240.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528057
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528719
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28546851
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528251
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529991
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528315
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528461
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528355
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28538671
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28534945
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528403
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1353240.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528183
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1353240.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528233
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28532267
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528497
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530203
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528387
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528547
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28532175
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28535031
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28547295
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528579
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529123
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530057
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28533379
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1353240.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530149
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1353240.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528297
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530909
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28535533
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528681
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1353240.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528393
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528767
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529077
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530109
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529119
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1353240.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529371
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28546797
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28532197
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28532431
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28540083
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28535341
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28546717
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28533225
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529775
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1353240.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28535153
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1353240.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528329
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28534045
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530889
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28530081
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1353240.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528605
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529965
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28529169
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1353240.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528529
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1353240.28528951
</commentlist>
</conversation>
