<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_02_2255241</id>
	<title>Microsoft Changing Users' Default Search Engine</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1246534440000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>BabyDuckHat writes <i>"Cnet's Dennis O'Reilly <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13880\_3-10277784-68.html">caught 'Windows Search Helper' trying to change his default Firefox search</a> from Google to Bing.  This <a href="http://www.ondotnet.com/pub/wlg/6594">isn't</a> <a href="http://www.daniweb.com/forums/thread760.html#">the</a> <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/05/microsoft\_update\_quietly\_insta.html">first</a> time the software company has been caught quietly changing user's preferences to benefit its own products."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>BabyDuckHat writes " Cnet 's Dennis O'Reilly caught 'Windows Search Helper ' trying to change his default Firefox search from Google to Bing .
This is n't the first time the software company has been caught quietly changing user 's preferences to benefit its own products .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BabyDuckHat writes "Cnet's Dennis O'Reilly caught 'Windows Search Helper' trying to change his default Firefox search from Google to Bing.
This isn't the first time the software company has been caught quietly changing user's preferences to benefit its own products.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28585099</id>
	<title>Say Yes to Bing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246785360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am glad to see Bing being pushed as a new search engine. Google has a crude interface, is the product of a company that keeps all of its products in beta, and while Microsoft may be a large company at least they don't engage in as many unethical data mining practices as Google. I sincerely hope Bing takes off and gets 90\% of the market by next year at this time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am glad to see Bing being pushed as a new search engine .
Google has a crude interface , is the product of a company that keeps all of its products in beta , and while Microsoft may be a large company at least they do n't engage in as many unethical data mining practices as Google .
I sincerely hope Bing takes off and gets 90 \ % of the market by next year at this time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am glad to see Bing being pushed as a new search engine.
Google has a crude interface, is the product of a company that keeps all of its products in beta, and while Microsoft may be a large company at least they don't engage in as many unethical data mining practices as Google.
I sincerely hope Bing takes off and gets 90\% of the market by next year at this time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566805</id>
	<title>Winamp does the same</title>
	<author>Spyware23</author>
	<datestamp>1246542240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Installing the Winamp toolbar (comes with Shoutcast) does the same thing. Changes your search engine in Firefox, you actually have to go to about:config and manually replace a string to get your old default back for the URL-bar searches.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Installing the Winamp toolbar ( comes with Shoutcast ) does the same thing .
Changes your search engine in Firefox , you actually have to go to about : config and manually replace a string to get your old default back for the URL-bar searches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Installing the Winamp toolbar (comes with Shoutcast) does the same thing.
Changes your search engine in Firefox, you actually have to go to about:config and manually replace a string to get your old default back for the URL-bar searches.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566263</id>
	<title>News?</title>
	<author>pilsner.urquell</author>
	<datestamp>1246538760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's new?  As someone who hasn't used Windows since 1995 I have no sympathy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's new ?
As someone who has n't used Windows since 1995 I have no sympathy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's new?
As someone who hasn't used Windows since 1995 I have no sympathy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566815</id>
	<title>Re:Although it's an inconvenience...</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1246542360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>and the amount of work you have to do is less than if you had to blow your nose.</i></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Try going into a bank and changing the default screen-saver on one of the cashiers' terminals, then ask me if you wouldn't be landed in jail with felony computer tampering/hacking charges. "But changing it back is less effort than blowing your nose" will not buy you any sympathy from the judge.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The point is they did something without permission. It used to be just plain bad manners. Nowadays there are laws against it, where computers are concerned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and the amount of work you have to do is less than if you had to blow your nose .
      Try going into a bank and changing the default screen-saver on one of the cashiers ' terminals , then ask me if you would n't be landed in jail with felony computer tampering/hacking charges .
" But changing it back is less effort than blowing your nose " will not buy you any sympathy from the judge .
      The point is they did something without permission .
It used to be just plain bad manners .
Nowadays there are laws against it , where computers are concerned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and the amount of work you have to do is less than if you had to blow your nose.
      Try going into a bank and changing the default screen-saver on one of the cashiers' terminals, then ask me if you wouldn't be landed in jail with felony computer tampering/hacking charges.
"But changing it back is less effort than blowing your nose" will not buy you any sympathy from the judge.
      The point is they did something without permission.
It used to be just plain bad manners.
Nowadays there are laws against it, where computers are concerned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567607</id>
	<title>Re:Too late. I already switched my default.</title>
	<author>rampant mac</author>
	<datestamp>1246548960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"<i>It's like non-Apple MP3 players.</i>"
<br> <br>
Not pretty, difficult to use, full of useless options and a minor player in the market?
<br> <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>/joke<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>" It 's like non-Apple MP3 players .
" Not pretty , difficult to use , full of useless options and a minor player in the market ?
/joke : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It's like non-Apple MP3 players.
"
 
Not pretty, difficult to use, full of useless options and a minor player in the market?
/joke :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566331</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566963</id>
	<title>Re:Once more with feeling</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246543500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait, the guy has NO evidence that it was "Search" that changed it.  Only that the entry is at the approximate time.  But what else happened at that same time?  Right before the supposed culprit is the google update service running.  More likely what happened is that they (being google) changed the entry on their own which, while in the end would've still been google search, their own software detected as a change.  Similar situation to a firewall having a rule to allow a certain exe access to the network, that exe being changed by a software update,  and the firewall firing off an alert that the signature has changed.</p><p>And nowhere does his "evidence" suggest Bing/Live as what the search was changed to.  For all we know Mr Oreilly's computer was trying to make hotsexxx search his default.</p><p>But I guess riding the bandwagon is too much fun to notice little details, eh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , the guy has NO evidence that it was " Search " that changed it .
Only that the entry is at the approximate time .
But what else happened at that same time ?
Right before the supposed culprit is the google update service running .
More likely what happened is that they ( being google ) changed the entry on their own which , while in the end would 've still been google search , their own software detected as a change .
Similar situation to a firewall having a rule to allow a certain exe access to the network , that exe being changed by a software update , and the firewall firing off an alert that the signature has changed.And nowhere does his " evidence " suggest Bing/Live as what the search was changed to .
For all we know Mr Oreilly 's computer was trying to make hotsexxx search his default.But I guess riding the bandwagon is too much fun to notice little details , eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, the guy has NO evidence that it was "Search" that changed it.
Only that the entry is at the approximate time.
But what else happened at that same time?
Right before the supposed culprit is the google update service running.
More likely what happened is that they (being google) changed the entry on their own which, while in the end would've still been google search, their own software detected as a change.
Similar situation to a firewall having a rule to allow a certain exe access to the network, that exe being changed by a software update,  and the firewall firing off an alert that the signature has changed.And nowhere does his "evidence" suggest Bing/Live as what the search was changed to.
For all we know Mr Oreilly's computer was trying to make hotsexxx search his default.But I guess riding the bandwagon is too much fun to notice little details, eh?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566137</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566287</id>
	<title>Want more ad money? Bash Microsoft !</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246538940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny how "geeks" here accept such crappy evidence as proof of any wrong doing. What happened to the geeks to could reverse engineer executables and actually point to the specific CPU instruction that actually did it?</p><p>Take the FUD surrounding DRM, take this crappy story, no geek has ever been able to point to that level of proof. Seems like the virus and malware authors being crappy programmers are happily able to reverse engineer windows binaries and find bugs.</p><p>Seems like F/OSS world is filled with wussies who need source code to figure things out. Ever heard of a game crack author crying about not having source code?  LOL.. turn in your geek cards...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny how " geeks " here accept such crappy evidence as proof of any wrong doing .
What happened to the geeks to could reverse engineer executables and actually point to the specific CPU instruction that actually did it ? Take the FUD surrounding DRM , take this crappy story , no geek has ever been able to point to that level of proof .
Seems like the virus and malware authors being crappy programmers are happily able to reverse engineer windows binaries and find bugs.Seems like F/OSS world is filled with wussies who need source code to figure things out .
Ever heard of a game crack author crying about not having source code ?
LOL.. turn in your geek cards.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny how "geeks" here accept such crappy evidence as proof of any wrong doing.
What happened to the geeks to could reverse engineer executables and actually point to the specific CPU instruction that actually did it?Take the FUD surrounding DRM, take this crappy story, no geek has ever been able to point to that level of proof.
Seems like the virus and malware authors being crappy programmers are happily able to reverse engineer windows binaries and find bugs.Seems like F/OSS world is filled with wussies who need source code to figure things out.
Ever heard of a game crack author crying about not having source code?
LOL.. turn in your geek cards...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28572601</id>
	<title>Re:Once more with feeling</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246641660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Moreso, O'Reilly never meant to claim that MS should be blamed for auto-changing his search engine.</p><p>His post is titled "Prevent your search default from being changed".</p><p>Clearly, the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. submitter wanted to focus on something other than the intent of O'Reilly's post.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Moreso , O'Reilly never meant to claim that MS should be blamed for auto-changing his search engine.His post is titled " Prevent your search default from being changed " .Clearly , the / .
submitter wanted to focus on something other than the intent of O'Reilly 's post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Moreso, O'Reilly never meant to claim that MS should be blamed for auto-changing his search engine.His post is titled "Prevent your search default from being changed".Clearly, the /.
submitter wanted to focus on something other than the intent of O'Reilly's post.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568059</id>
	<title>Re:BING... BADA-bing, BADAA BOOM</title>
	<author>davidsyes</author>
	<datestamp>1246553040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Big Ass, Dumb-Ass bing</p><p>Being A DUMB ASS AGAIN, Bullies' Ingracious nefarious grousing (hehehehe)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Big Ass , Dumb-Ass bingBeing A DUMB ASS AGAIN , Bullies ' Ingracious nefarious grousing ( hehehehe )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Big Ass, Dumb-Ass bingBeing A DUMB ASS AGAIN, Bullies' Ingracious nefarious grousing (hehehehe)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567007</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft still doesn't get it and never will</title>
	<author>moon3</author>
	<datestamp>1246543740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, that is the idea. If it works that well (Google) then copy it exactly as it is, if you can.<br> <br>Pointing IE at Bing by default may keep lots of people on Bing with no need to even bother switching to Google.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , that is the idea .
If it works that well ( Google ) then copy it exactly as it is , if you can .
Pointing IE at Bing by default may keep lots of people on Bing with no need to even bother switching to Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, that is the idea.
If it works that well (Google) then copy it exactly as it is, if you can.
Pointing IE at Bing by default may keep lots of people on Bing with no need to even bother switching to Google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569443</id>
	<title>FUD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246614780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hello, FUD</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hello , FUD</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hello, FUD</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569351</id>
	<title>Re:Too late. I already switched my default.</title>
	<author>Conanymous Award</author>
	<datestamp>1246613340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nothing bad about trying out the alternative to find out how it works, but is there really some kind of intrinsic value in rooting for the underdog - especially when this underdog is Microsoft? Not to say that Google isn't big (and eeeevil), but MS definitely *is* big (and eeeevil), not just that much in search tech. Same goes for anti-iPod pro-Zune fanboys.
<br> <br>
I also don't think being against the grain for the sake of being against the grain is quite honest intellectually. I hope if you find Bing more useful than Google, you end up preferring it because of that, not because of being different from the percieved mainstream.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing bad about trying out the alternative to find out how it works , but is there really some kind of intrinsic value in rooting for the underdog - especially when this underdog is Microsoft ?
Not to say that Google is n't big ( and eeeevil ) , but MS definitely * is * big ( and eeeevil ) , not just that much in search tech .
Same goes for anti-iPod pro-Zune fanboys .
I also do n't think being against the grain for the sake of being against the grain is quite honest intellectually .
I hope if you find Bing more useful than Google , you end up preferring it because of that , not because of being different from the percieved mainstream .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing bad about trying out the alternative to find out how it works, but is there really some kind of intrinsic value in rooting for the underdog - especially when this underdog is Microsoft?
Not to say that Google isn't big (and eeeevil), but MS definitely *is* big (and eeeevil), not just that much in search tech.
Same goes for anti-iPod pro-Zune fanboys.
I also don't think being against the grain for the sake of being against the grain is quite honest intellectually.
I hope if you find Bing more useful than Google, you end up preferring it because of that, not because of being different from the percieved mainstream.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566331</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567617</id>
	<title>how long before...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246549080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And how long before one of the Microsoft "updates"... kills your XP installation dead. It will of course include a lovely pop-up in shades of blue offering you an instant upgrade to Windows 7, just enter your credit card details...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And how long before one of the Microsoft " updates " ... kills your XP installation dead .
It will of course include a lovely pop-up in shades of blue offering you an instant upgrade to Windows 7 , just enter your credit card details.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And how long before one of the Microsoft "updates"... kills your XP installation dead.
It will of course include a lovely pop-up in shades of blue offering you an instant upgrade to Windows 7, just enter your credit card details...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566283</id>
	<title>Re:Once more with feeling</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246538880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nah...this definitely wasn't going to happen..I mean, they only failed to try and silently change the default browser, ya know...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nah...this definitely was n't going to happen..I mean , they only failed to try and silently change the default browser , ya know.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nah...this definitely wasn't going to happen..I mean, they only failed to try and silently change the default browser, ya know...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566137</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566137</id>
	<title>Once more with feeling</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246538160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is on the exact same track as the behaviour that brought them their first major antitrust suit.  Perhaps the Bing switch is "an essential part of the operating system".  Bunk.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is on the exact same track as the behaviour that brought them their first major antitrust suit .
Perhaps the Bing switch is " an essential part of the operating system " .
Bunk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is on the exact same track as the behaviour that brought them their first major antitrust suit.
Perhaps the Bing switch is "an essential part of the operating system".
Bunk.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567061</id>
	<title>I just don't get it</title>
	<author>dynamo</author>
	<datestamp>1246544160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not surprising or new behavior for them, *everything* they make puts their interests ahead of the user's<br>Why in hell do people continue to pour money into this monstrosity of a software company?</p><p>Is it some kind of learned helplessness?<br>Is it a common misconception that all software companies treat their customers with self-important condescension?</p><p>How much abuse must you go through before you leave?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not surprising or new behavior for them , * everything * they make puts their interests ahead of the user'sWhy in hell do people continue to pour money into this monstrosity of a software company ? Is it some kind of learned helplessness ? Is it a common misconception that all software companies treat their customers with self-important condescension ? How much abuse must you go through before you leave ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not surprising or new behavior for them, *everything* they make puts their interests ahead of the user'sWhy in hell do people continue to pour money into this monstrosity of a software company?Is it some kind of learned helplessness?Is it a common misconception that all software companies treat their customers with self-important condescension?How much abuse must you go through before you leave?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566849</id>
	<title>mMod Xdown</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246542660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">or mislead the so that thei8 for electio8, I It's best to try</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>or mislead the so that thei8 for electio8 , I It 's best to try [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or mislead the so that thei8 for electio8, I It's best to try [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569361</id>
	<title>Re:Once more with feeling</title>
	<author>h4rm0ny</author>
	<datestamp>1246613460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>
Funnily enough, everytime my package manager updated Firefox on Ubuntu, my chosen search engine (Yahoo) seems to get bumped back to Google. Google of course being one of the big funders of Mozilla. Same annoying thing. But apparently Microsoft's change only affects IE6, so who cares?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funnily enough , everytime my package manager updated Firefox on Ubuntu , my chosen search engine ( Yahoo ) seems to get bumped back to Google .
Google of course being one of the big funders of Mozilla .
Same annoying thing .
But apparently Microsoft 's change only affects IE6 , so who cares ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Funnily enough, everytime my package manager updated Firefox on Ubuntu, my chosen search engine (Yahoo) seems to get bumped back to Google.
Google of course being one of the big funders of Mozilla.
Same annoying thing.
But apparently Microsoft's change only affects IE6, so who cares?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569229</id>
	<title>Re:Best part about freedom!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246654560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, right. I get what you are saying there: The best part about freedom is the freedom to give away your freedom.</p><p>You are as dim as they come.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , right .
I get what you are saying there : The best part about freedom is the freedom to give away your freedom.You are as dim as they come .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, right.
I get what you are saying there: The best part about freedom is the freedom to give away your freedom.You are as dim as they come.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567005</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1246543740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And on a side note...</p><p>Why does google now require a phone number when applying for Gmail?!</p><p>Scary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And on a side note...Why does google now require a phone number when applying for Gmail ?
! Scary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And on a side note...Why does google now require a phone number when applying for Gmail?
!Scary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566251</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569307</id>
	<title>Re:Google Owns Search</title>
	<author>Dr\_Barnowl</author>
	<datestamp>1246612380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Dysoning" just doesn't have the same ring to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Dysoning " just does n't have the same ring to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Dysoning" just doesn't have the same ring to it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566701</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28570177</id>
	<title>Re:Want more ad money? Bash Microsoft !</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246624860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, who else would want to silently change the search preference to Bing?  Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , who else would want to silently change the search preference to Bing ?
Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, who else would want to silently change the search preference to Bing?
Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567377</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft still doesn't get it and never will</title>
	<author>Green Salad</author>
	<datestamp>1246546620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't say Microsoft doesn't innovate...they've fundamentally changed they way I work.  Just when when I thought basic office tools couldn't get any more bloated, Microsoft proves just how 'innovative' they can be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't say Microsoft does n't innovate...they 've fundamentally changed they way I work .
Just when when I thought basic office tools could n't get any more bloated , Microsoft proves just how 'innovative ' they can be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't say Microsoft doesn't innovate...they've fundamentally changed they way I work.
Just when when I thought basic office tools couldn't get any more bloated, Microsoft proves just how 'innovative' they can be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566397</id>
	<title>Google does it too</title>
	<author>LotsOfPhil</author>
	<datestamp>1246539540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Picasa defaults to change your IE search to Google.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Picasa defaults to change your IE search to Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Picasa defaults to change your IE search to Google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567363</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe a but more research next time /. ?</title>
	<author>Deathlizard</author>
	<datestamp>1246546380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This article is flamebait. It's pretty much making up an assumption based on guesses.</p><p>I've had Vista on my work desktop going on 7 months and XP on my PC at home going on 7 years now. Both boxes are used all day.</p><p>Not once, Not one single time, not ever, did my default search program ever change. In fact the only time it was changed was after installing the Google toolbar by my choice. The only thing that remotely comes to mind when it comes to something changing my PC's settings is the stupid Google button that appears next to the start button every time the Google toolbar updates on my XP box at home. At least it's easy to remove but I've removed it twice now.</p><p>I got IE8, I watched my Search icon automatically change from MSN Search to Bing. I got all the MS updates and extras through Windows update. I've installed Windows search 4.0 on the Vista PC, Office Live, and Live Essentials. I use Bing. Hell I'm Beta testing Microsoft products. and Google is still the default. About the only thing I don't have is the MSN toolbar, which I don't need since I have the Google toolbar.</p><p>Am I doing something right to keep MS from changing my choice or does MS love me too much to screw with my settings?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This article is flamebait .
It 's pretty much making up an assumption based on guesses.I 've had Vista on my work desktop going on 7 months and XP on my PC at home going on 7 years now .
Both boxes are used all day.Not once , Not one single time , not ever , did my default search program ever change .
In fact the only time it was changed was after installing the Google toolbar by my choice .
The only thing that remotely comes to mind when it comes to something changing my PC 's settings is the stupid Google button that appears next to the start button every time the Google toolbar updates on my XP box at home .
At least it 's easy to remove but I 've removed it twice now.I got IE8 , I watched my Search icon automatically change from MSN Search to Bing .
I got all the MS updates and extras through Windows update .
I 've installed Windows search 4.0 on the Vista PC , Office Live , and Live Essentials .
I use Bing .
Hell I 'm Beta testing Microsoft products .
and Google is still the default .
About the only thing I do n't have is the MSN toolbar , which I do n't need since I have the Google toolbar.Am I doing something right to keep MS from changing my choice or does MS love me too much to screw with my settings ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article is flamebait.
It's pretty much making up an assumption based on guesses.I've had Vista on my work desktop going on 7 months and XP on my PC at home going on 7 years now.
Both boxes are used all day.Not once, Not one single time, not ever, did my default search program ever change.
In fact the only time it was changed was after installing the Google toolbar by my choice.
The only thing that remotely comes to mind when it comes to something changing my PC's settings is the stupid Google button that appears next to the start button every time the Google toolbar updates on my XP box at home.
At least it's easy to remove but I've removed it twice now.I got IE8, I watched my Search icon automatically change from MSN Search to Bing.
I got all the MS updates and extras through Windows update.
I've installed Windows search 4.0 on the Vista PC, Office Live, and Live Essentials.
I use Bing.
Hell I'm Beta testing Microsoft products.
and Google is still the default.
About the only thing I don't have is the MSN toolbar, which I don't need since I have the Google toolbar.Am I doing something right to keep MS from changing my choice or does MS love me too much to screw with my settings?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567455</id>
	<title>Poop stinks...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246547280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>and so do you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>and so do you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and so do you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28577711</id>
	<title>Re:BING</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1246642140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ahhh recursive acronyms<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... for people who like to think they are witty and smart, but it turns out are just stupid with a broken sense of humor as determined by pretty much every other recursive acronym used to name something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahhh recursive acronyms ... for people who like to think they are witty and smart , but it turns out are just stupid with a broken sense of humor as determined by pretty much every other recursive acronym used to name something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahhh recursive acronyms ... for people who like to think they are witty and smart, but it turns out are just stupid with a broken sense of humor as determined by pretty much every other recursive acronym used to name something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28570687</id>
	<title>Re:Google does it too</title>
	<author>viralMeme</author>
	<datestamp>1246629780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Picasa defaults to change your IE search to Google</i> <br> <br>

Only if you are installing Picasa and it does give you an option to unselect this option</htmltext>
<tokenext>Picasa defaults to change your IE search to Google Only if you are installing Picasa and it does give you an option to unselect this option</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Picasa defaults to change your IE search to Google  

Only if you are installing Picasa and it does give you an option to unselect this option</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566393</id>
	<title>Microsoft still doesn't get it and never will</title>
	<author>merc</author>
	<datestamp>1246539540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just looking at Bing you see that aside from being heavily laden with background graphics it is more or less a functional copy of google's search engine.  Why is it that microsoft has never been able to innovate anything interesting on their own?  What's the matter M$ can't you succeed in the market without copying others' hard work?  Every little bit of success they've ever had has involved stealing or copying from the success of others.  Ballmer's past vitriol against google demonstrates an important internal mindset: they are VERY jealous of success and long for the early glory days when microsoft first had a taste of this.  Their past actions towards Netscape show that they will do anything to return to these days.</p><p>I for one will never switch from google -- besides the fact that they take the minimalist approach they also provided a search engine with the mindset "what can we do to enrich the world" vs. the microsoft mentality of "how can the world enrich microsoft".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just looking at Bing you see that aside from being heavily laden with background graphics it is more or less a functional copy of google 's search engine .
Why is it that microsoft has never been able to innovate anything interesting on their own ?
What 's the matter M $ ca n't you succeed in the market without copying others ' hard work ?
Every little bit of success they 've ever had has involved stealing or copying from the success of others .
Ballmer 's past vitriol against google demonstrates an important internal mindset : they are VERY jealous of success and long for the early glory days when microsoft first had a taste of this .
Their past actions towards Netscape show that they will do anything to return to these days.I for one will never switch from google -- besides the fact that they take the minimalist approach they also provided a search engine with the mindset " what can we do to enrich the world " vs. the microsoft mentality of " how can the world enrich microsoft " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just looking at Bing you see that aside from being heavily laden with background graphics it is more or less a functional copy of google's search engine.
Why is it that microsoft has never been able to innovate anything interesting on their own?
What's the matter M$ can't you succeed in the market without copying others' hard work?
Every little bit of success they've ever had has involved stealing or copying from the success of others.
Ballmer's past vitriol against google demonstrates an important internal mindset: they are VERY jealous of success and long for the early glory days when microsoft first had a taste of this.
Their past actions towards Netscape show that they will do anything to return to these days.I for one will never switch from google -- besides the fact that they take the minimalist approach they also provided a search engine with the mindset "what can we do to enrich the world" vs. the microsoft mentality of "how can the world enrich microsoft".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566473</id>
	<title>Re:Once more with feeling</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246540020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well I made the cardinal sin of reading the article. There is no proof and what he "found" was irrelevant. He said the warning came up about when he booted. Guess what? When you boot ALL the services that are installed and set to auto-start do something - they START. Microsoft didn't do this; at least you sure can't prove it by this idiot. He most likely has some stupid malware/spyware/crapware installed that did it. Shoot, you can post any poorly researched crap on the web these days and people will link to it as long as it says "MS is teh evil". <br> <br>I need to have Digg's "OK this is lame" to bury this article.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I made the cardinal sin of reading the article .
There is no proof and what he " found " was irrelevant .
He said the warning came up about when he booted .
Guess what ?
When you boot ALL the services that are installed and set to auto-start do something - they START .
Microsoft did n't do this ; at least you sure ca n't prove it by this idiot .
He most likely has some stupid malware/spyware/crapware installed that did it .
Shoot , you can post any poorly researched crap on the web these days and people will link to it as long as it says " MS is teh evil " .
I need to have Digg 's " OK this is lame " to bury this article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I made the cardinal sin of reading the article.
There is no proof and what he "found" was irrelevant.
He said the warning came up about when he booted.
Guess what?
When you boot ALL the services that are installed and set to auto-start do something - they START.
Microsoft didn't do this; at least you sure can't prove it by this idiot.
He most likely has some stupid malware/spyware/crapware installed that did it.
Shoot, you can post any poorly researched crap on the web these days and people will link to it as long as it says "MS is teh evil".
I need to have Digg's "OK this is lame" to bury this article.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566137</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28570015</id>
	<title>Re:BING</title>
	<author>pitdingo</author>
	<datestamp>1246622400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bing = Bing is not good</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing = Bing is not good</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing = Bing is not good</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567329</id>
	<title>Re:BING</title>
	<author>someSnarkyBastard</author>
	<datestamp>1246546080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You sir, whoever you are, win all my internets for the night. Congrats.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You sir , whoever you are , win all my internets for the night .
Congrats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You sir, whoever you are, win all my internets for the night.
Congrats.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566167</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>Beatlebum</author>
	<datestamp>1246538280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's most surprising.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's most surprising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's most surprising.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566661</id>
	<title>Although it's an inconvenience...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246541100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So worst case scenario is that your default search engine is changed, you notice it the first time you search for something, you take 30 seconds to change it back, and that's pretty much the end of it.  No software has been installed, no software has been deleted, and the amount of work you have to do is less than if you had to blow your nose.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So worst case scenario is that your default search engine is changed , you notice it the first time you search for something , you take 30 seconds to change it back , and that 's pretty much the end of it .
No software has been installed , no software has been deleted , and the amount of work you have to do is less than if you had to blow your nose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So worst case scenario is that your default search engine is changed, you notice it the first time you search for something, you take 30 seconds to change it back, and that's pretty much the end of it.
No software has been installed, no software has been deleted, and the amount of work you have to do is less than if you had to blow your nose.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569313</id>
	<title>Re:Once more with feeling</title>
	<author>uglyduckling</author>
	<datestamp>1246612500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you have <a href="http://www.inquisitorx.com/safari/index\_en.php" title="inquisitorx.com">been misinformed</a> [inquisitorx.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you have been misinformed [ inquisitorx.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you have been misinformed [inquisitorx.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567999</id>
	<title>Re:Once more with feeling</title>
	<author>fullgandoo</author>
	<datestamp>1246552560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or they could take the Mac route with Safari which restricts the search engine to just Google.<br> <br>
Odd that no one on Slashdot finds that behavior disgusting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or they could take the Mac route with Safari which restricts the search engine to just Google .
Odd that no one on Slashdot finds that behavior disgusting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or they could take the Mac route with Safari which restricts the search engine to just Google.
Odd that no one on Slashdot finds that behavior disgusting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566137</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28571129</id>
	<title>Never assume malice when stupitity is adequate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246632780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Never assume its malicious.  Likely the intent was to change from Live which is the normal default to Bing which is their new system but forgot to accomodate for people who have already picked a different search provider.  Simple oversight/stupidity and not thinking things all the way through more than explains everything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Never assume its malicious .
Likely the intent was to change from Live which is the normal default to Bing which is their new system but forgot to accomodate for people who have already picked a different search provider .
Simple oversight/stupidity and not thinking things all the way through more than explains everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never assume its malicious.
Likely the intent was to change from Live which is the normal default to Bing which is their new system but forgot to accomodate for people who have already picked a different search provider.
Simple oversight/stupidity and not thinking things all the way through more than explains everything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566347</id>
	<title>Also installing unwanted Firefox extension</title>
	<author>harmonise</author>
	<datestamp>1246539300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On Tuesday Microsoft also pushed an update for their<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net runtime that again tried to install a some kind of Firefox extension. I had already removed this extension and the associated registry entry a few months ago when the latest<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net runtime was installed. Here they are doing it again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On Tuesday Microsoft also pushed an update for their .Net runtime that again tried to install a some kind of Firefox extension .
I had already removed this extension and the associated registry entry a few months ago when the latest .Net runtime was installed .
Here they are doing it again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On Tuesday Microsoft also pushed an update for their .Net runtime that again tried to install a some kind of Firefox extension.
I had already removed this extension and the associated registry entry a few months ago when the latest .Net runtime was installed.
Here they are doing it again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569333</id>
	<title>Re:Too late. I already switched my default.</title>
	<author>chip\_s\_ahoy</author>
	<datestamp>1246612800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.google.com/#hl=en&amp;q=queltor&amp;aq=f&amp;oq=&amp;aqi=&amp;fp=i7xqt1XgzY0" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/#hl=en&amp;q=queltor&amp;aq=f&amp;oq=&amp;aqi=&amp;fp=i7xqt1XgzY0</a> [google.com]</p><p><a href="http://www.bing.com/search?q=queltor&amp;go=&amp;form=QBLH&amp;qs=n" title="bing.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.bing.com/search?q=queltor&amp;go=&amp;form=QBLH&amp;qs=n</a> [bing.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.google.com/ # hl = en&amp;q = queltor&amp;aq = f&amp;oq = &amp;aqi = &amp;fp = i7xqt1XgzY0 [ google.com ] http : //www.bing.com/search ? q = queltor&amp;go = &amp;form = QBLH&amp;qs = n [ bing.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.google.com/#hl=en&amp;q=queltor&amp;aq=f&amp;oq=&amp;aqi=&amp;fp=i7xqt1XgzY0 [google.com]http://www.bing.com/search?q=queltor&amp;go=&amp;form=QBLH&amp;qs=n [bing.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566331</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566549</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246540380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google's antitrust is because of a book deal, not search market tomfoolery.</p><p>Completely different playground.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google 's antitrust is because of a book deal , not search market tomfoolery.Completely different playground .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google's antitrust is because of a book deal, not search market tomfoolery.Completely different playground.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566251</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28577095</id>
	<title>Re:Once more with feeling</title>
	<author>Waccoon</author>
	<datestamp>1246634760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Three days ago I was working on my dad's computer, and IE gave me a warning telling me that something had messed with its search defaults, and the browser brought up a selector so I could choose/verify the search defaults.  Bing was selected as the default, so I chose Google and clicked "set default".  The list didn't update.  So, I did it again, and restarted.</p><p>IE gave me another warning about something changing the default, and Bing is still the default.  I clicked the checkbox titled, "Prevent programs from suggesting changes to my default search provider", and tried to set Google to the default again.  No dice.  I tried looking for any rouge IE extensions (under "All add-ons") to see if there was anything messing up IE.  I could find no 3rd-party tool that would be messing with IE's configuration.  I checked all the Windows startup options and background services and found nothing unusual.  No matter what I do, IE refuses to even acknowledge me choosing Google, let alone actually set it to the default.  Not even changing the search engine listing order works.</p><p>I'm going to try this on another machine to confirm.  I am 100\% sure I don't have mal-ware on my backup computer, and I'm pretty sure that IE is doing something funny, and I'm sure Microsoft would just claim this is a "bug" of some sort.</p><p>BTW, my dad does business-related stuff on his computer, so he won't switch to Firefox.  That makes this issue all that much more annoying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Three days ago I was working on my dad 's computer , and IE gave me a warning telling me that something had messed with its search defaults , and the browser brought up a selector so I could choose/verify the search defaults .
Bing was selected as the default , so I chose Google and clicked " set default " .
The list did n't update .
So , I did it again , and restarted.IE gave me another warning about something changing the default , and Bing is still the default .
I clicked the checkbox titled , " Prevent programs from suggesting changes to my default search provider " , and tried to set Google to the default again .
No dice .
I tried looking for any rouge IE extensions ( under " All add-ons " ) to see if there was anything messing up IE .
I could find no 3rd-party tool that would be messing with IE 's configuration .
I checked all the Windows startup options and background services and found nothing unusual .
No matter what I do , IE refuses to even acknowledge me choosing Google , let alone actually set it to the default .
Not even changing the search engine listing order works.I 'm going to try this on another machine to confirm .
I am 100 \ % sure I do n't have mal-ware on my backup computer , and I 'm pretty sure that IE is doing something funny , and I 'm sure Microsoft would just claim this is a " bug " of some sort.BTW , my dad does business-related stuff on his computer , so he wo n't switch to Firefox .
That makes this issue all that much more annoying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Three days ago I was working on my dad's computer, and IE gave me a warning telling me that something had messed with its search defaults, and the browser brought up a selector so I could choose/verify the search defaults.
Bing was selected as the default, so I chose Google and clicked "set default".
The list didn't update.
So, I did it again, and restarted.IE gave me another warning about something changing the default, and Bing is still the default.
I clicked the checkbox titled, "Prevent programs from suggesting changes to my default search provider", and tried to set Google to the default again.
No dice.
I tried looking for any rouge IE extensions (under "All add-ons") to see if there was anything messing up IE.
I could find no 3rd-party tool that would be messing with IE's configuration.
I checked all the Windows startup options and background services and found nothing unusual.
No matter what I do, IE refuses to even acknowledge me choosing Google, let alone actually set it to the default.
Not even changing the search engine listing order works.I'm going to try this on another machine to confirm.
I am 100\% sure I don't have mal-ware on my backup computer, and I'm pretty sure that IE is doing something funny, and I'm sure Microsoft would just claim this is a "bug" of some sort.BTW, my dad does business-related stuff on his computer, so he won't switch to Firefox.
That makes this issue all that much more annoying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568423</id>
	<title>Epiphany on Ubuntu 8.04</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246556940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used my addressbar to search a rather long search term that should have hit google, but instead hit bing which said it couldn't find anything. I was baffled to say the least. My search terms point to google's "I'm feeling lucky" entry, by the way - but put the terms in google search if the terms are too specific.</p><p>Happened today. True story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used my addressbar to search a rather long search term that should have hit google , but instead hit bing which said it could n't find anything .
I was baffled to say the least .
My search terms point to google 's " I 'm feeling lucky " entry , by the way - but put the terms in google search if the terms are too specific.Happened today .
True story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used my addressbar to search a rather long search term that should have hit google, but instead hit bing which said it couldn't find anything.
I was baffled to say the least.
My search terms point to google's "I'm feeling lucky" entry, by the way - but put the terms in google search if the terms are too specific.Happened today.
True story.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567507</id>
	<title>Re:Once more with feeling</title>
	<author>Latinhypercube</author>
	<datestamp>1246547760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So what. Quicktime constantly tries to take over the playback of ALL my media files, even though it has horrible avi support.
Everyone does it, even VLC does it and that's open source.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what .
Quicktime constantly tries to take over the playback of ALL my media files , even though it has horrible avi support .
Everyone does it , even VLC does it and that 's open source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what.
Quicktime constantly tries to take over the playback of ALL my media files, even though it has horrible avi support.
Everyone does it, even VLC does it and that's open source.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566137</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28570553</id>
	<title>it was just an accident</title>
	<author>viralMeme</author>
	<datestamp>1246628820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It was just an accident, Microsoft have never stopped to manipulating the Windows paltform to give itself an unfair advantage<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was just an accident , Microsoft have never stopped to manipulating the Windows paltform to give itself an unfair advantage ... : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was just an accident, Microsoft have never stopped to manipulating the Windows paltform to give itself an unfair advantage ... :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566559</id>
	<title>No, they actually DON'T know what you want...</title>
	<author>macraig</author>
	<datestamp>1246540500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... nor do they really care.  What Microsoft DOES know is what IT wants: knowledge of your buttons and which ones they can press to make money flow out.  Isn't that what so-called behavioral marketing is all about?</p><p>See, you're really nothing more than a human slot machine to Microsoft, and Bing is just one of their attempts at a "system" to let them cash in more often than the house does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... nor do they really care .
What Microsoft DOES know is what IT wants : knowledge of your buttons and which ones they can press to make money flow out .
Is n't that what so-called behavioral marketing is all about ? See , you 're really nothing more than a human slot machine to Microsoft , and Bing is just one of their attempts at a " system " to let them cash in more often than the house does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... nor do they really care.
What Microsoft DOES know is what IT wants: knowledge of your buttons and which ones they can press to make money flow out.
Isn't that what so-called behavioral marketing is all about?See, you're really nothing more than a human slot machine to Microsoft, and Bing is just one of their attempts at a "system" to let them cash in more often than the house does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566701</id>
	<title>Re:Google Owns Search</title>
	<author>williamhb</author>
	<datestamp>1246541400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When the general public think about searching the Internet they think of Google, even the phrase 'Google it' is fairly common. I wonder what the success rate is for this strategy?</p></div><p>It's not foolproof.  In the UK, "hoovering" is a synonym for vacuum cleaning, but Hoover no longer dominate the vacuum cleaner market.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When the general public think about searching the Internet they think of Google , even the phrase 'Google it ' is fairly common .
I wonder what the success rate is for this strategy ? It 's not foolproof .
In the UK , " hoovering " is a synonym for vacuum cleaning , but Hoover no longer dominate the vacuum cleaner market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the general public think about searching the Internet they think of Google, even the phrase 'Google it' is fairly common.
I wonder what the success rate is for this strategy?It's not foolproof.
In the UK, "hoovering" is a synonym for vacuum cleaning, but Hoover no longer dominate the vacuum cleaner market.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567053</id>
	<title>IE7 has been misbehaving too</title>
	<author>SEWilco</author>
	<datestamp>1246544100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm hardly surprised.  For months, each (occasional) time that I start IE7 it asks me if I want to change my default search engine, and refuses to store my negative answer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm hardly surprised .
For months , each ( occasional ) time that I start IE7 it asks me if I want to change my default search engine , and refuses to store my negative answer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm hardly surprised.
For months, each (occasional) time that I start IE7 it asks me if I want to change my default search engine, and refuses to store my negative answer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568919</id>
	<title>Re:There's no proof...</title>
	<author>scjohnno</author>
	<datestamp>1246563480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even more damning is that he has no proof that it was even being changed to Bing. The only reason Microsoft is even considered as the culprit is because he found a perfectly normal service, Windows Search, start up at the same time as all of the other on-boot services. This is something to laugh at <i>at best</i>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even more damning is that he has no proof that it was even being changed to Bing .
The only reason Microsoft is even considered as the culprit is because he found a perfectly normal service , Windows Search , start up at the same time as all of the other on-boot services .
This is something to laugh at at best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even more damning is that he has no proof that it was even being changed to Bing.
The only reason Microsoft is even considered as the culprit is because he found a perfectly normal service, Windows Search, start up at the same time as all of the other on-boot services.
This is something to laugh at at best.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566659</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246541100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone needs to document the patches and the dates of all of the Microsoft 'anti-competive' user-preference changes through patching...</p><p>I remember at least the following:</p><p>1. reinstalling of MSN Messenger through a patch<br>2. setting MSN Messenger to restart on boot even after preferences were turned off (after upgrading Outlook Express maybe)<br>3. Setting homepage to 'live.com' or 'msn.com' with any Internet Explorer upgrades<br>4. MSN Explorer randomly appearing after uninstall<br>5. Putting 'Free Hotmail' link back into links with any IE patch<br>6. Telling me to 'turn on automatic updates' even if they've been turned off.. with every update</p><p>There's a lot more.. just can't remember them..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone needs to document the patches and the dates of all of the Microsoft 'anti-competive ' user-preference changes through patching...I remember at least the following : 1. reinstalling of MSN Messenger through a patch2 .
setting MSN Messenger to restart on boot even after preferences were turned off ( after upgrading Outlook Express maybe ) 3 .
Setting homepage to 'live.com ' or 'msn.com ' with any Internet Explorer upgrades4 .
MSN Explorer randomly appearing after uninstall5 .
Putting 'Free Hotmail ' link back into links with any IE patch6 .
Telling me to 'turn on automatic updates ' even if they 've been turned off.. with every updateThere 's a lot more.. just ca n't remember them. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone needs to document the patches and the dates of all of the Microsoft 'anti-competive' user-preference changes through patching...I remember at least the following:1. reinstalling of MSN Messenger through a patch2.
setting MSN Messenger to restart on boot even after preferences were turned off (after upgrading Outlook Express maybe)3.
Setting homepage to 'live.com' or 'msn.com' with any Internet Explorer upgrades4.
MSN Explorer randomly appearing after uninstall5.
Putting 'Free Hotmail' link back into links with any IE patch6.
Telling me to 'turn on automatic updates' even if they've been turned off.. with every updateThere's a lot more.. just can't remember them..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566167</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28571917</id>
	<title>Microsoft's Mission Statement.</title>
	<author>Fantastic Lad</author>
	<datestamp>1246637280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, yeah, no surprise here.</p><p>A snake cannot change its spots.</p><p>But what color ARE those spots, exactly. . ?  I wondered about this and decided to do a quick (Google) search for Microsoft's Mission Statement, and found this. . . (From <a href="http://www.samples-help.org.uk/mission-statements/microsoft-mission-statement.htm" title="samples-help.org.uk">here.</a> [samples-help.org.uk] </p><blockquote><div><p>Microsoft Mission Statement</p><p>Our Mission<br>At Microsoft, we work to help people and businesses throughout the world realize their full potential. This is our mission. Everything we do reflects this mission and the values that make it possible.</p><p>Our Values<br>As a company, and as individuals, we value:</p><p>Integrity and honesty.<br>Passion for customers, for our partners, and for technology.<br>Openness and respectfulness.<br>Taking on big challenges and seeing them through.<br>Constructive self-criticism, self-improvement, and personal excellence.<br>Accountability to customers, shareholders, partners, and employees for commitments, results, and quality.</p></div></blockquote><p>So either the people with decision-making power working over at Redmond have failed to read the darned thing, or employees live in a state of cognitive dissonance, REALLY, HONESTLY believing that they are working to, "help people and businesses throughout the world realize their full potential."</p><p>And if that's the case, Microsoft isn't just evil.  It's insane.</p><p>Good to know.</p><p>-FL</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , yeah , no surprise here.A snake can not change its spots.But what color ARE those spots , exactly .
. ?
I wondered about this and decided to do a quick ( Google ) search for Microsoft 's Mission Statement , and found this .
. .
( From here .
[ samples-help.org.uk ] Microsoft Mission StatementOur MissionAt Microsoft , we work to help people and businesses throughout the world realize their full potential .
This is our mission .
Everything we do reflects this mission and the values that make it possible.Our ValuesAs a company , and as individuals , we value : Integrity and honesty.Passion for customers , for our partners , and for technology.Openness and respectfulness.Taking on big challenges and seeing them through.Constructive self-criticism , self-improvement , and personal excellence.Accountability to customers , shareholders , partners , and employees for commitments , results , and quality.So either the people with decision-making power working over at Redmond have failed to read the darned thing , or employees live in a state of cognitive dissonance , REALLY , HONESTLY believing that they are working to , " help people and businesses throughout the world realize their full potential .
" And if that 's the case , Microsoft is n't just evil .
It 's insane.Good to know.-FL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, yeah, no surprise here.A snake cannot change its spots.But what color ARE those spots, exactly.
. ?
I wondered about this and decided to do a quick (Google) search for Microsoft's Mission Statement, and found this.
. .
(From here.
[samples-help.org.uk] Microsoft Mission StatementOur MissionAt Microsoft, we work to help people and businesses throughout the world realize their full potential.
This is our mission.
Everything we do reflects this mission and the values that make it possible.Our ValuesAs a company, and as individuals, we value:Integrity and honesty.Passion for customers, for our partners, and for technology.Openness and respectfulness.Taking on big challenges and seeing them through.Constructive self-criticism, self-improvement, and personal excellence.Accountability to customers, shareholders, partners, and employees for commitments, results, and quality.So either the people with decision-making power working over at Redmond have failed to read the darned thing, or employees live in a state of cognitive dissonance, REALLY, HONESTLY believing that they are working to, "help people and businesses throughout the world realize their full potential.
"And if that's the case, Microsoft isn't just evil.
It's insane.Good to know.-FL
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569171</id>
	<title>Re:There's no proof...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246653840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the article doesn't offer any actual evidence that Microsoft is changing search engine preferences without users knowing it.</p></div><p>dunno but i believe they are. 'cause i've got outlook updates changing default mail app to outlook for me every time.  i don't change it, nor am i informed.</p><p>the list of their "non-burdening" services show up from time to time. e.g. they put "lauch microsoft outlook" in my quick launch list each time i run outlook.</p><p>it's like that episode in transformers where the guy tries to call the central.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the article does n't offer any actual evidence that Microsoft is changing search engine preferences without users knowing it.dunno but i believe they are .
'cause i 've got outlook updates changing default mail app to outlook for me every time .
i do n't change it , nor am i informed.the list of their " non-burdening " services show up from time to time .
e.g. they put " lauch microsoft outlook " in my quick launch list each time i run outlook.it 's like that episode in transformers where the guy tries to call the central .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the article doesn't offer any actual evidence that Microsoft is changing search engine preferences without users knowing it.dunno but i believe they are.
'cause i've got outlook updates changing default mail app to outlook for me every time.
i don't change it, nor am i informed.the list of their "non-burdening" services show up from time to time.
e.g. they put "lauch microsoft outlook" in my quick launch list each time i run outlook.it's like that episode in transformers where the guy tries to call the central.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568563</id>
	<title>Re:Want more ad money? Bash Microsoft !</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1246558920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Funny how "geeks" here accept such crappy evidence as proof of any wrong doing.</p></div><p>Are you assuming people RTFA thoroughly enough to know that the evidence was crappy?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny how " geeks " here accept such crappy evidence as proof of any wrong doing.Are you assuming people RTFA thoroughly enough to know that the evidence was crappy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny how "geeks" here accept such crappy evidence as proof of any wrong doing.Are you assuming people RTFA thoroughly enough to know that the evidence was crappy?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28570301</id>
	<title>Re:Too late. I already switched my default.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246626540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you are one of those people who have joined the very popular "anti-mainstream for no good reason" crowd. Very original in deed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you are one of those people who have joined the very popular " anti-mainstream for no good reason " crowd .
Very original in deed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you are one of those people who have joined the very popular "anti-mainstream for no good reason" crowd.
Very original in deed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566331</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566455</id>
	<title>Microsoft knows this is "wrong"</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1246539900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They simply HAVE to know it is wrong.  They have dealt with too many legal and court proceedings not to know.  A complaint should be filed with the DOJ on this indicating that Microsoft has NOT changed its behavior and that either new proceedings should be started or old remedies should be reconsidered.  It is a clear example of Microsoft not learning its lessons and should be broken up into separate companies as originally planned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They simply HAVE to know it is wrong .
They have dealt with too many legal and court proceedings not to know .
A complaint should be filed with the DOJ on this indicating that Microsoft has NOT changed its behavior and that either new proceedings should be started or old remedies should be reconsidered .
It is a clear example of Microsoft not learning its lessons and should be broken up into separate companies as originally planned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They simply HAVE to know it is wrong.
They have dealt with too many legal and court proceedings not to know.
A complaint should be filed with the DOJ on this indicating that Microsoft has NOT changed its behavior and that either new proceedings should be started or old remedies should be reconsidered.
It is a clear example of Microsoft not learning its lessons and should be broken up into separate companies as originally planned.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28570587</id>
	<title>Google browser in a hurry ?</title>
	<author>viralMeme</author>
	<datestamp>1246629120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"<i>This is why Sergey Brin is running around scared, and this is why Google is releasing their own browser in a hurry (it too sends all your browsing data to Google, for the same purposes)</i>"<br> <br>

Like how was Chrome released in response to Bing, when Bing came out some eight months afre the first release of Chrome?<br> <br>

'Bing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Unveiled by Microsoft<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSN\_Search" title="wikipedia.org">May 28, 2009</a> [wikipedia.org]'<br> <br>

'Google Chrome<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. was first released as a beta version for Microsoft Windows on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google\_Chrome" title="wikipedia.org">2 September 2008</a> [wikipedia.org]'</htmltext>
<tokenext>" This is why Sergey Brin is running around scared , and this is why Google is releasing their own browser in a hurry ( it too sends all your browsing data to Google , for the same purposes ) " Like how was Chrome released in response to Bing , when Bing came out some eight months afre the first release of Chrome ?
'Bing ... Unveiled by Microsoft .. on May 28 , 2009 [ wikipedia.org ] ' 'Google Chrome .. was first released as a beta version for Microsoft Windows on 2 September 2008 [ wikipedia.org ] '</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"This is why Sergey Brin is running around scared, and this is why Google is releasing their own browser in a hurry (it too sends all your browsing data to Google, for the same purposes)" 

Like how was Chrome released in response to Bing, when Bing came out some eight months afre the first release of Chrome?
'Bing ... Unveiled by Microsoft .. on May 28, 2009 [wikipedia.org]' 

'Google Chrome .. was first released as a beta version for Microsoft Windows on 2 September 2008 [wikipedia.org]'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567533</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567171</id>
	<title>Google does the same thing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246544880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Google Toolbar, silently and at a later date from install, steals the 'new tab' default page in IE8.</p><p>Just let them play the game, change things back the way you like it, and quit complaining.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Google Toolbar , silently and at a later date from install , steals the 'new tab ' default page in IE8.Just let them play the game , change things back the way you like it , and quit complaining .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Google Toolbar, silently and at a later date from install, steals the 'new tab' default page in IE8.Just let them play the game, change things back the way you like it, and quit complaining.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566305</id>
	<title>Brilliant Business Strategy.</title>
	<author>DoninIN</author>
	<datestamp>1246539120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So they blatantly violate who knows how many anti-trust laws and abuse their near monopoly to finally destroy google. You know this day has been coming, we all do. Then they pay a "huge" fine five years from now when the government finally gets around to punishing them for it.. Say four, five hundred million dollars? A billion this time. Brilliant, that's a great investment if you're MS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So they blatantly violate who knows how many anti-trust laws and abuse their near monopoly to finally destroy google .
You know this day has been coming , we all do .
Then they pay a " huge " fine five years from now when the government finally gets around to punishing them for it.. Say four , five hundred million dollars ?
A billion this time .
Brilliant , that 's a great investment if you 're MS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So they blatantly violate who knows how many anti-trust laws and abuse their near monopoly to finally destroy google.
You know this day has been coming, we all do.
Then they pay a "huge" fine five years from now when the government finally gets around to punishing them for it.. Say four, five hundred million dollars?
A billion this time.
Brilliant, that's a great investment if you're MS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566407</id>
	<title>Re:How is this news?</title>
	<author>guruevi</author>
	<datestamp>1246539600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not the issue. The issue is that the 'required software update' Internet Explorer 8 changes all your preferences to bing.com instead of migrating/leaving it from IE7 or before. I have noticed it too on a machine I sometimes use. As soon as the latest updates are installed, the search preference and home page preference changes to bing.com (from whatever you had before) for all users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not the issue .
The issue is that the 'required software update ' Internet Explorer 8 changes all your preferences to bing.com instead of migrating/leaving it from IE7 or before .
I have noticed it too on a machine I sometimes use .
As soon as the latest updates are installed , the search preference and home page preference changes to bing.com ( from whatever you had before ) for all users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not the issue.
The issue is that the 'required software update' Internet Explorer 8 changes all your preferences to bing.com instead of migrating/leaving it from IE7 or before.
I have noticed it too on a machine I sometimes use.
As soon as the latest updates are installed, the search preference and home page preference changes to bing.com (from whatever you had before) for all users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566465</id>
	<title>Parent does have a point... proof?</title>
	<author>Animaether</author>
	<datestamp>1246539960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The guy got this warning when he booted up his computer - then mentions that he didn't give permission to any search engine change.  What, after he booted up?  I guess not.  Perhaps he did so before he shut it down?  Perhaps he did so several days ago and whatever he installed* told him that the system would need rebooting to finish installation, and he ignored it (like most people).</p><p>* I'm saying "whatever he installed" because I'm looking at my Vista Business N 32bit install with Internet Explorer 8 (upgraded from 7 a day or two back), and..<br>- Google is still (it was in IE7) my first-listed search provider<br>- I can find no "Windows Search Helper" service (there's a "Windows Search" service; different thing, presumably)<br>- I can find no "Windows Search *anything*" in IE8's Add-ons list.</p><p>Hitting Google with "Windows Search Helper" yields the story and... well.. supposed anti-malware sites that are ever-so-useful in telling me what it is or where it comes from (sarcasm.)</p><p>So for all we know, he installed.. who knows what, something.. and that something may very well have asked him if he wanted to change the default search to Bing.</p><p>I wouldn't put it past Microsoft to do something like this.. but as of yet, my Vista machine isn't showing any evidence of it; nor does the article.</p><p>'course the other part of the article is 'sane'.. letting the google toolbar (if you have that installed anyway) make sure that your default search is Google if you're so-inclined as to have two search fields with the same provider (if I installed it, I'd set the IE8 one to Bing and leave the Google Toolbar one to Google, but that's me... then again, I tend to use Firefox), seems like a pretty good precaution to take.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The guy got this warning when he booted up his computer - then mentions that he did n't give permission to any search engine change .
What , after he booted up ?
I guess not .
Perhaps he did so before he shut it down ?
Perhaps he did so several days ago and whatever he installed * told him that the system would need rebooting to finish installation , and he ignored it ( like most people ) .
* I 'm saying " whatever he installed " because I 'm looking at my Vista Business N 32bit install with Internet Explorer 8 ( upgraded from 7 a day or two back ) , and..- Google is still ( it was in IE7 ) my first-listed search provider- I can find no " Windows Search Helper " service ( there 's a " Windows Search " service ; different thing , presumably ) - I can find no " Windows Search * anything * " in IE8 's Add-ons list.Hitting Google with " Windows Search Helper " yields the story and... well.. supposed anti-malware sites that are ever-so-useful in telling me what it is or where it comes from ( sarcasm .
) So for all we know , he installed.. who knows what , something.. and that something may very well have asked him if he wanted to change the default search to Bing.I would n't put it past Microsoft to do something like this.. but as of yet , my Vista machine is n't showing any evidence of it ; nor does the article .
'course the other part of the article is 'sane'.. letting the google toolbar ( if you have that installed anyway ) make sure that your default search is Google if you 're so-inclined as to have two search fields with the same provider ( if I installed it , I 'd set the IE8 one to Bing and leave the Google Toolbar one to Google , but that 's me... then again , I tend to use Firefox ) , seems like a pretty good precaution to take .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The guy got this warning when he booted up his computer - then mentions that he didn't give permission to any search engine change.
What, after he booted up?
I guess not.
Perhaps he did so before he shut it down?
Perhaps he did so several days ago and whatever he installed* told him that the system would need rebooting to finish installation, and he ignored it (like most people).
* I'm saying "whatever he installed" because I'm looking at my Vista Business N 32bit install with Internet Explorer 8 (upgraded from 7 a day or two back), and..- Google is still (it was in IE7) my first-listed search provider- I can find no "Windows Search Helper" service (there's a "Windows Search" service; different thing, presumably)- I can find no "Windows Search *anything*" in IE8's Add-ons list.Hitting Google with "Windows Search Helper" yields the story and... well.. supposed anti-malware sites that are ever-so-useful in telling me what it is or where it comes from (sarcasm.
)So for all we know, he installed.. who knows what, something.. and that something may very well have asked him if he wanted to change the default search to Bing.I wouldn't put it past Microsoft to do something like this.. but as of yet, my Vista machine isn't showing any evidence of it; nor does the article.
'course the other part of the article is 'sane'.. letting the google toolbar (if you have that installed anyway) make sure that your default search is Google if you're so-inclined as to have two search fields with the same provider (if I installed it, I'd set the IE8 one to Bing and leave the Google Toolbar one to Google, but that's me... then again, I tend to use Firefox), seems like a pretty good precaution to take.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28571417</id>
	<title>If at first you don't succeed</title>
	<author>jeric23</author>
	<datestamp>1246634520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Change the user preferences</htmltext>
<tokenext>Change the user preferences</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Change the user preferences</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566917</id>
	<title>Re:How is this news?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246543140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As Penn and Teller would say.  "BULL SHIT"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As Penn and Teller would say .
" BULL SHIT "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As Penn and Teller would say.
"BULL SHIT"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28570241</id>
	<title>Re:This is relatively innocuous, compared to</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246625760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is Sergey Brin running around scared?  How nice of you to slip that in with no link or reference, completely unattributed.  I call foul.</p><p>Google has a good answer, not being evil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is Sergey Brin running around scared ?
How nice of you to slip that in with no link or reference , completely unattributed .
I call foul.Google has a good answer , not being evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is Sergey Brin running around scared?
How nice of you to slip that in with no link or reference, completely unattributed.
I call foul.Google has a good answer, not being evil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567533</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566235</id>
	<title>Yawn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246538580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Par for the course.  Now that they're busted, I'm sure one of their unethical employees, or even better, one of those slimey shills they employ under the table, will come out and say "Oh, it was an accident."</p><p>Microsoft, to IT what human sewage is to clean water.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Par for the course .
Now that they 're busted , I 'm sure one of their unethical employees , or even better , one of those slimey shills they employ under the table , will come out and say " Oh , it was an accident .
" Microsoft , to IT what human sewage is to clean water .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Par for the course.
Now that they're busted, I'm sure one of their unethical employees, or even better, one of those slimey shills they employ under the table, will come out and say "Oh, it was an accident.
"Microsoft, to IT what human sewage is to clean water.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569727</id>
	<title>Re:Once more with feeling</title>
	<author>macs4all</author>
	<datestamp>1246617960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Still better that Safari on Mac which doesn't allow anything but Google as the search engine.</p></div><p>Maybe not out of the box, but the FREE Safari plugin <a href="http://www.inquisitorx.com/safari/index\_en.php" title="inquisitorx.com" rel="nofollow">Inquisitor</a> [inquisitorx.com] allows the search engine to be changed at will, and much more.<br> <br>
The site does a really poor job of explaining this, but trust me, Inquisitor will do the trick.<br> <br>
I have read that Inquisitor may not work with Safari 4 yet (which may be outdated information). Here is another free plugin, <a href="http://www.machangout.com/" title="machangout.com" rel="nofollow">Glims</a> [machangout.com], that will allow the changing of search engines in Safari 4 for Mac.<br> <br>
As a Mac user, it IS kind of odd that Safari 4 for Windows allows the selection of Search Engines, but Safari 4 for Mac does not...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Still better that Safari on Mac which does n't allow anything but Google as the search engine.Maybe not out of the box , but the FREE Safari plugin Inquisitor [ inquisitorx.com ] allows the search engine to be changed at will , and much more .
The site does a really poor job of explaining this , but trust me , Inquisitor will do the trick .
I have read that Inquisitor may not work with Safari 4 yet ( which may be outdated information ) .
Here is another free plugin , Glims [ machangout.com ] , that will allow the changing of search engines in Safari 4 for Mac .
As a Mac user , it IS kind of odd that Safari 4 for Windows allows the selection of Search Engines , but Safari 4 for Mac does not.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Still better that Safari on Mac which doesn't allow anything but Google as the search engine.Maybe not out of the box, but the FREE Safari plugin Inquisitor [inquisitorx.com] allows the search engine to be changed at will, and much more.
The site does a really poor job of explaining this, but trust me, Inquisitor will do the trick.
I have read that Inquisitor may not work with Safari 4 yet (which may be outdated information).
Here is another free plugin, Glims [machangout.com], that will allow the changing of search engines in Safari 4 for Mac.
As a Mac user, it IS kind of odd that Safari 4 for Windows allows the selection of Search Engines, but Safari 4 for Mac does not...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28570535</id>
	<title>Hope they...</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1246628640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hope they go to court over this and finally learn a hard lesson. You can't change the settings on a user's computer without his knowledge and approval. Doing so, makes you a criminal capable of going to jail<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... if enough people set up a class action lawsuit, they WILL get M$ on this. Sony was caught and faced a big fine for doing this, as for M$ trying to use the old, well it's our OS and we can do what we want with it...those days are over as per the previous Anti trust case against them in EU.</p><p>When will they learn, I guess we are doomed to repeat are failures...no?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hope they go to court over this and finally learn a hard lesson .
You ca n't change the settings on a user 's computer without his knowledge and approval .
Doing so , makes you a criminal capable of going to jail .... if enough people set up a class action lawsuit , they WILL get M $ on this .
Sony was caught and faced a big fine for doing this , as for M $ trying to use the old , well it 's our OS and we can do what we want with it...those days are over as per the previous Anti trust case against them in EU.When will they learn , I guess we are doomed to repeat are failures...no ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hope they go to court over this and finally learn a hard lesson.
You can't change the settings on a user's computer without his knowledge and approval.
Doing so, makes you a criminal capable of going to jail .... if enough people set up a class action lawsuit, they WILL get M$ on this.
Sony was caught and faced a big fine for doing this, as for M$ trying to use the old, well it's our OS and we can do what we want with it...those days are over as per the previous Anti trust case against them in EU.When will they learn, I guess we are doomed to repeat are failures...no?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566617</id>
	<title>Best part about freedom!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246540800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can choose a different OS. I don't think Microsoft did anything wrong. As a consumer the responsibility of picking a product that behaves the way you want is in your hands.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can choose a different OS .
I do n't think Microsoft did anything wrong .
As a consumer the responsibility of picking a product that behaves the way you want is in your hands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can choose a different OS.
I don't think Microsoft did anything wrong.
As a consumer the responsibility of picking a product that behaves the way you want is in your hands.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567545</id>
	<title>Re:Best part about freedom!!</title>
	<author>IANAAC</author>
	<datestamp>1246548240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>
You can choose a different OS.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>
You mean like when you walk into your local Best Buy or Fry's and have the choice of either a Windows machine or a Mac?
</p><p>
That's what most people do.  And they don't change their OS to something different after purchase.
</p><p>
Sorry, but Apple is just as bad as Microsoft in this regard.  And has been mentioned previously, install Picasa and Google does it too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can choose a different OS .
You mean like when you walk into your local Best Buy or Fry 's and have the choice of either a Windows machine or a Mac ?
That 's what most people do .
And they do n't change their OS to something different after purchase .
Sorry , but Apple is just as bad as Microsoft in this regard .
And has been mentioned previously , install Picasa and Google does it too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 
You can choose a different OS.
You mean like when you walk into your local Best Buy or Fry's and have the choice of either a Windows machine or a Mac?
That's what most people do.
And they don't change their OS to something different after purchase.
Sorry, but Apple is just as bad as Microsoft in this regard.
And has been mentioned previously, install Picasa and Google does it too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566765</id>
	<title>The author has NO evidence at all</title>
	<author>poppycock</author>
	<datestamp>1246541880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA: "Well, I can't prove it based solely on the Event Viewer logs, but it's safe to say the search service is the prime suspect." He noticed this warning when the PC booted up, and looked through the logs and saw a service with the word "search" in it, that started up at the same time. Guess what? Services start at bootup.</p><p>You can hate Microsoft all you like, but the author MADE THIS UP based on his uninformed speculation. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : " Well , I ca n't prove it based solely on the Event Viewer logs , but it 's safe to say the search service is the prime suspect .
" He noticed this warning when the PC booted up , and looked through the logs and saw a service with the word " search " in it , that started up at the same time .
Guess what ?
Services start at bootup.You can hate Microsoft all you like , but the author MADE THIS UP based on his uninformed speculation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA: "Well, I can't prove it based solely on the Event Viewer logs, but it's safe to say the search service is the prime suspect.
" He noticed this warning when the PC booted up, and looked through the logs and saw a service with the word "search" in it, that started up at the same time.
Guess what?
Services start at bootup.You can hate Microsoft all you like, but the author MADE THIS UP based on his uninformed speculation. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567091</id>
	<title>Re:Too late. I already switched my default.</title>
	<author>koreaman</author>
	<datestamp>1246544400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought Hurd was the underdog?!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought Hurd was the underdog ? !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought Hurd was the underdog?!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566331</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567839</id>
	<title>I see you have a machine</title>
	<author>Mesa MIke</author>
	<datestamp>1246551240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... that goes, "Bing!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... that goes , " Bing !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... that goes, "Bing!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566627</id>
	<title>Did you click any of the buttons?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246540860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funnily enough, clicking on any "Add to Internet Explorer" button in Firefox opened a window suggesting I install IE8 to use the feature - any button except for the button under Bing. That one opened a message box informing me that Firefox doesn't support this search provider.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funnily enough , clicking on any " Add to Internet Explorer " button in Firefox opened a window suggesting I install IE8 to use the feature - any button except for the button under Bing .
That one opened a message box informing me that Firefox does n't support this search provider .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funnily enough, clicking on any "Add to Internet Explorer" button in Firefox opened a window suggesting I install IE8 to use the feature - any button except for the button under Bing.
That one opened a message box informing me that Firefox doesn't support this search provider.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566303</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566593</id>
	<title>So some guy wrote an article about...</title>
	<author>uxbn\_kuribo</author>
	<datestamp>1246540680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>something changing his browser settings? And this made<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. today?

Is it THAT slow a news day in IT? Hell, if I wrote an article everytime something tried to change my browser settings, or install some search engine toolbar, I'd have to quit my job because I'd be writing articles all day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>something changing his browser settings ?
And this made / .
today ? Is it THAT slow a news day in IT ?
Hell , if I wrote an article everytime something tried to change my browser settings , or install some search engine toolbar , I 'd have to quit my job because I 'd be writing articles all day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>something changing his browser settings?
And this made /.
today?

Is it THAT slow a news day in IT?
Hell, if I wrote an article everytime something tried to change my browser settings, or install some search engine toolbar, I'd have to quit my job because I'd be writing articles all day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567983</id>
	<title>Re:Google Owns Search</title>
	<author>swilly</author>
	<datestamp>1246552440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True, but now you can <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0MKdjG1F\_c" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">Google using Bing!</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True , but now you can Google using Bing !
[ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True, but now you can Google using Bing!
[youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566601</id>
	<title>Re:Too late. I already switched my default.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246540740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's hilarious. In order to "not be part of the herd", you're specifically allowing your choices to be dictated by said herd.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's hilarious .
In order to " not be part of the herd " , you 're specifically allowing your choices to be dictated by said herd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's hilarious.
In order to "not be part of the herd", you're specifically allowing your choices to be dictated by said herd.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566331</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568109</id>
	<title>Wow. Microsoft is pushing it.</title>
	<author>therufus</author>
	<datestamp>1246553460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just today, we read on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. that <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/07/02/1355210/Safe-Harbor-Spells-Win-For-Kaspersky-In-Malware-Case-Against-Zango" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">Zango sued Kaspersky and lost</a> [slashdot.org], setting a precedent that will no doubt have an effect on malware vendors. I posted <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1289859&amp;cid=28567927" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">a reply</a> [slashdot.org] which fits perfectly with THIS story in THAT thread!</p><p>For those who don't want to click, the gist of it was that Zango gained money via deceit (changing software to gain profits) and was classed as malware. MS are doing the same as Zango!!!!!! Any business obtaining money by deceit is trading ILLEGALLY. Tsk tsk Microsoft. In this climate of spyware/malware becoming a larger target in the public eye, I can't believe this could turn out rosy for Redmond.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just today , we read on / .
that Zango sued Kaspersky and lost [ slashdot.org ] , setting a precedent that will no doubt have an effect on malware vendors .
I posted a reply [ slashdot.org ] which fits perfectly with THIS story in THAT thread ! For those who do n't want to click , the gist of it was that Zango gained money via deceit ( changing software to gain profits ) and was classed as malware .
MS are doing the same as Zango ! ! ! ! ! !
Any business obtaining money by deceit is trading ILLEGALLY .
Tsk tsk Microsoft .
In this climate of spyware/malware becoming a larger target in the public eye , I ca n't believe this could turn out rosy for Redmond .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just today, we read on /.
that Zango sued Kaspersky and lost [slashdot.org], setting a precedent that will no doubt have an effect on malware vendors.
I posted a reply [slashdot.org] which fits perfectly with THIS story in THAT thread!For those who don't want to click, the gist of it was that Zango gained money via deceit (changing software to gain profits) and was classed as malware.
MS are doing the same as Zango!!!!!!
Any business obtaining money by deceit is trading ILLEGALLY.
Tsk tsk Microsoft.
In this climate of spyware/malware becoming a larger target in the public eye, I can't believe this could turn out rosy for Redmond.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566331</id>
	<title>Too late. I already switched my default.</title>
	<author>Queltor</author>
	<datestamp>1246539240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are some things Google does very well. Others, not so well.</p><p>I'm using Bing now to see if I like it. It's like UNIX. It's like non-Apple MP3 players. I'll give the underdog a try so I don't have to be part of the herd. Besides, most popular doesn't always mean best.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are some things Google does very well .
Others , not so well.I 'm using Bing now to see if I like it .
It 's like UNIX .
It 's like non-Apple MP3 players .
I 'll give the underdog a try so I do n't have to be part of the herd .
Besides , most popular does n't always mean best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are some things Google does very well.
Others, not so well.I'm using Bing now to see if I like it.
It's like UNIX.
It's like non-Apple MP3 players.
I'll give the underdog a try so I don't have to be part of the herd.
Besides, most popular doesn't always mean best.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567231</id>
	<title>Great</title>
	<author>thatskinnyguy</author>
	<datestamp>1246545300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>More software to consciously deny in WSUS. I thought The "Genuine Advantage Notification Tool" was bad enough.</htmltext>
<tokenext>More software to consciously deny in WSUS .
I thought The " Genuine Advantage Notification Tool " was bad enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More software to consciously deny in WSUS.
I thought The "Genuine Advantage Notification Tool" was bad enough.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568459</id>
	<title>Re:Once more with feeling</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246557300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Probably because that page isn't set to sort by the popularity of the engine, but by the most recently added, alphabetically, by the rating, and by the most viewed.   I don't see what you'd expect Microsoft would do about the first two, but if you want to start viewing the Google page some more, you can, and you can even rate it up!</p><p>I suppose you might believe Microsoft is fudging the results, somehow, such as by having two Google Search Suggestions entries, but oh well, it's not like it really matters.  Most people aren't going to use that page anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably because that page is n't set to sort by the popularity of the engine , but by the most recently added , alphabetically , by the rating , and by the most viewed .
I do n't see what you 'd expect Microsoft would do about the first two , but if you want to start viewing the Google page some more , you can , and you can even rate it up ! I suppose you might believe Microsoft is fudging the results , somehow , such as by having two Google Search Suggestions entries , but oh well , it 's not like it really matters .
Most people are n't going to use that page anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably because that page isn't set to sort by the popularity of the engine, but by the most recently added, alphabetically, by the rating, and by the most viewed.
I don't see what you'd expect Microsoft would do about the first two, but if you want to start viewing the Google page some more, you can, and you can even rate it up!I suppose you might believe Microsoft is fudging the results, somehow, such as by having two Google Search Suggestions entries, but oh well, it's not like it really matters.
Most people aren't going to use that page anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566303</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566205</id>
	<title>BING</title>
	<author>penguin\_dance</author>
	<datestamp>1246538460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BING = But It's Not Google</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BING = But It 's Not Google</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BING = But It's Not Google</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28570135</id>
	<title>Re:Want more ad money? Bash Microsoft !</title>
	<author>ciderVisor</author>
	<datestamp>1246624380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It was easy when programs were 16k.</p></div><p>What does that get you these days ? <a href="http://www2.b3ta.com/heyhey16k/" title="b3ta.com">You need more than that for a letter.</a> [b3ta.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was easy when programs were 16k.What does that get you these days ?
You need more than that for a letter .
[ b3ta.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was easy when programs were 16k.What does that get you these days ?
You need more than that for a letter.
[b3ta.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566289</id>
	<title>How is this news?</title>
	<author>basementman</author>
	<datestamp>1246538940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Software companies have been doing this for years. They get paid to bundle toolbars and other junk with legit software and unless you are careful and remember to untick the necessary check boxes they install. Ask has been the most recent offender in this area, doing it's best to carve out a small niche in the search market.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Software companies have been doing this for years .
They get paid to bundle toolbars and other junk with legit software and unless you are careful and remember to untick the necessary check boxes they install .
Ask has been the most recent offender in this area , doing it 's best to carve out a small niche in the search market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Software companies have been doing this for years.
They get paid to bundle toolbars and other junk with legit software and unless you are careful and remember to untick the necessary check boxes they install.
Ask has been the most recent offender in this area, doing it's best to carve out a small niche in the search market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568759</id>
	<title>Re:Want more ad money? Bash Microsoft !</title>
	<author>Odinlake</author>
	<datestamp>1246561380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree, this is weak. And in the actual article I can't even see any statement that the attempted change was to BING.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , this is weak .
And in the actual article I ca n't even see any statement that the attempted change was to BING .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, this is weak.
And in the actual article I can't even see any statement that the attempted change was to BING.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28577973</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1246645680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because at some point you told it you wanted SMS notifications for something, such as scheduled events.</p><p>At least, thats the only time it asked me for a phone number, which I was happy to provide, since, you know, I was asking them to send messages to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because at some point you told it you wanted SMS notifications for something , such as scheduled events.At least , thats the only time it asked me for a phone number , which I was happy to provide , since , you know , I was asking them to send messages to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because at some point you told it you wanted SMS notifications for something, such as scheduled events.At least, thats the only time it asked me for a phone number, which I was happy to provide, since, you know, I was asking them to send messages to it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567005</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566229</id>
	<title>Wrong Summary!</title>
	<author>hrieke</author>
	<datestamp>1246538580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tim,</p><p>Please read the story yourself;<br>It's not Firefox that Vista tries to change but IE8.  Google's toolbar caught the action in IE8 and alerted him to the change.  He then said that there was no alert option offered in Firefox's Google toolbar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tim,Please read the story yourself ; It 's not Firefox that Vista tries to change but IE8 .
Google 's toolbar caught the action in IE8 and alerted him to the change .
He then said that there was no alert option offered in Firefox 's Google toolbar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tim,Please read the story yourself;It's not Firefox that Vista tries to change but IE8.
Google's toolbar caught the action in IE8 and alerted him to the change.
He then said that there was no alert option offered in Firefox's Google toolbar.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28571131</id>
	<title>Re:Once more with feeling</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246632780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do remember that Google's intention was to do no evil...?<br>http://www.google.com/corporate/tenthings.html</p><p>Everytime you use BInG... an angel has its wings plucked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do remember that Google 's intention was to do no evil... ? http : //www.google.com/corporate/tenthings.htmlEverytime you use BInG... an angel has its wings plucked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do remember that Google's intention was to do no evil...?http://www.google.com/corporate/tenthings.htmlEverytime you use BInG... an angel has its wings plucked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28570145</id>
	<title>Up against the GPL'd REAL Bing.</title>
	<author>XB-70</author>
	<datestamp>1246624440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From Yet Another User Home Page <a href="http://fgouget.free.fr/bing/index-en.shtml" title="fgouget.free.fr" rel="nofollow">http://fgouget.free.fr/bing/index-en.shtml</a> [fgouget.free.fr]
<p>
"What is bing ?
bing is an application written by Pierre Beyssac which measures the RAW bandwidth of a remote network link. Let me ad some precisions. By "remote" I mean a link not directly connected to your computer. For instance you can measure the bandwidth of a link between you ISP and the rest of the internet. By "RAW" I mean that you can measure the intrinsic bandwidth of the link not what's left once the other users have taken their share. So even if a link is saturated and you can only get 1KBps out of it bing will be able to tell you whether it is a 128Kbps link or 256Kbps or more. Now don't expect miracles. You will not be able to measure the bandwidth of an ethernet link in a remote end of the internet through your modem at a time when the internet is completely saturated."
</p><p>
Bing appears to have been around since before 1999.
</p><p>
I think Microsoft has a legal problem on it's hands. This is long-established GPL software. Is Bing not software too? Could there be 'brand confusion'? What about prior art etc. etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From Yet Another User Home Page http : //fgouget.free.fr/bing/index-en.shtml [ fgouget.free.fr ] " What is bing ?
bing is an application written by Pierre Beyssac which measures the RAW bandwidth of a remote network link .
Let me ad some precisions .
By " remote " I mean a link not directly connected to your computer .
For instance you can measure the bandwidth of a link between you ISP and the rest of the internet .
By " RAW " I mean that you can measure the intrinsic bandwidth of the link not what 's left once the other users have taken their share .
So even if a link is saturated and you can only get 1KBps out of it bing will be able to tell you whether it is a 128Kbps link or 256Kbps or more .
Now do n't expect miracles .
You will not be able to measure the bandwidth of an ethernet link in a remote end of the internet through your modem at a time when the internet is completely saturated .
" Bing appears to have been around since before 1999 .
I think Microsoft has a legal problem on it 's hands .
This is long-established GPL software .
Is Bing not software too ?
Could there be 'brand confusion ' ?
What about prior art etc .
etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From Yet Another User Home Page http://fgouget.free.fr/bing/index-en.shtml [fgouget.free.fr]

"What is bing ?
bing is an application written by Pierre Beyssac which measures the RAW bandwidth of a remote network link.
Let me ad some precisions.
By "remote" I mean a link not directly connected to your computer.
For instance you can measure the bandwidth of a link between you ISP and the rest of the internet.
By "RAW" I mean that you can measure the intrinsic bandwidth of the link not what's left once the other users have taken their share.
So even if a link is saturated and you can only get 1KBps out of it bing will be able to tell you whether it is a 128Kbps link or 256Kbps or more.
Now don't expect miracles.
You will not be able to measure the bandwidth of an ethernet link in a remote end of the internet through your modem at a time when the internet is completely saturated.
"

Bing appears to have been around since before 1999.
I think Microsoft has a legal problem on it's hands.
This is long-established GPL software.
Is Bing not software too?
Could there be 'brand confusion'?
What about prior art etc.
etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569195</id>
	<title>Re:Once more with feeling</title>
	<author>Canazza</author>
	<datestamp>1246654200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In Firefox, type about:config in the address bar and press Enter. Browse to and double-click browser.search.defaultenginename. Type the name of any search service listed on the search drop-down menu and press OK.</p></div></blockquote><p>I like how he goes through all that rigmarole just to change the default search service when all you need to do is select another search engine and make a search. Viola! Your default search has been changed!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Firefox , type about : config in the address bar and press Enter .
Browse to and double-click browser.search.defaultenginename .
Type the name of any search service listed on the search drop-down menu and press OK.I like how he goes through all that rigmarole just to change the default search service when all you need to do is select another search engine and make a search .
Viola ! Your default search has been changed !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Firefox, type about:config in the address bar and press Enter.
Browse to and double-click browser.search.defaultenginename.
Type the name of any search service listed on the search drop-down menu and press OK.I like how he goes through all that rigmarole just to change the default search service when all you need to do is select another search engine and make a search.
Viola! Your default search has been changed!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568125</id>
	<title>This is worse than their last Anti-trust suit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246553640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They got hammered in Europe and would have in the USA if the idiot judge had been able to resist the silly idea that he was a TV celebrity.</p><p>With the last anti-trust complaint the browser was at least on the OS disk, now they're leveraging their monopoly to replace a Google URL with Bing, that is EXACTLY why we have anti-trust laws.</p><p>Google should file an anti-trust complaint IMMEDIATELY, don't wait until Microsoft has stolen some market share complain NOW.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They got hammered in Europe and would have in the USA if the idiot judge had been able to resist the silly idea that he was a TV celebrity.With the last anti-trust complaint the browser was at least on the OS disk , now they 're leveraging their monopoly to replace a Google URL with Bing , that is EXACTLY why we have anti-trust laws.Google should file an anti-trust complaint IMMEDIATELY , do n't wait until Microsoft has stolen some market share complain NOW .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They got hammered in Europe and would have in the USA if the idiot judge had been able to resist the silly idea that he was a TV celebrity.With the last anti-trust complaint the browser was at least on the OS disk, now they're leveraging their monopoly to replace a Google URL with Bing, that is EXACTLY why we have anti-trust laws.Google should file an anti-trust complaint IMMEDIATELY, don't wait until Microsoft has stolen some market share complain NOW.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567341</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder what we'd say if the shoe was on...</title>
	<author>DavidD\_CA</author>
	<datestamp>1246546200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just to throw in a "me too", I have had Google set as my default search engine for well over 3 or 4 years on many machines and installations.</p><p>I've since installed a wide variety of Microsoft apps, including Live Messenger, Windows Desktop Search, and Search 4, and never once has it changed my preference.</p><p>I think Live Messenger *asked* me if I could, but I said no and it didn't.</p><p>His findings don't even suggest that it was his default search that could have been changed.</p><p>I suspect there's a chance that if anything was updated without his approval, it might have been one of the alternate search providers within IE.  I could definitely see a Microsoft update which changed this setting from Live Search to Bing... and I don't think it would be necessarily evil to update their URL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just to throw in a " me too " , I have had Google set as my default search engine for well over 3 or 4 years on many machines and installations.I 've since installed a wide variety of Microsoft apps , including Live Messenger , Windows Desktop Search , and Search 4 , and never once has it changed my preference.I think Live Messenger * asked * me if I could , but I said no and it did n't.His findings do n't even suggest that it was his default search that could have been changed.I suspect there 's a chance that if anything was updated without his approval , it might have been one of the alternate search providers within IE .
I could definitely see a Microsoft update which changed this setting from Live Search to Bing... and I do n't think it would be necessarily evil to update their URL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just to throw in a "me too", I have had Google set as my default search engine for well over 3 or 4 years on many machines and installations.I've since installed a wide variety of Microsoft apps, including Live Messenger, Windows Desktop Search, and Search 4, and never once has it changed my preference.I think Live Messenger *asked* me if I could, but I said no and it didn't.His findings don't even suggest that it was his default search that could have been changed.I suspect there's a chance that if anything was updated without his approval, it might have been one of the alternate search providers within IE.
I could definitely see a Microsoft update which changed this setting from Live Search to Bing... and I don't think it would be necessarily evil to update their URL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567205</id>
	<title>Re:Also installing unwanted Firefox extension</title>
	<author>Deathlizard</author>
	<datestamp>1246545180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this is the ".NET framework assistant" update for Firefox 3.5</p><p>I guess you can say its a good thing, since this version overwrites the old one, and is uninstallable unlike the old one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this is the " .NET framework assistant " update for Firefox 3.5I guess you can say its a good thing , since this version overwrites the old one , and is uninstallable unlike the old one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is the ".NET framework assistant" update for Firefox 3.5I guess you can say its a good thing, since this version overwrites the old one, and is uninstallable unlike the old one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567591</id>
	<title>Re:Once more with feeling</title>
	<author>ThinkTwicePostOnce</author>
	<datestamp>1246548780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Folks below who read the article say this headline is just not correct.</p><p>Let me take this opportunity to call the BING TV ad campaign the most repulsive since the one where Bill G wiggles his butt.  (Ugh, shudder!)</p><p>The only thing they could have done to make it worse is have Billy Mays screeching the already irritating voice track.</p><p>(People who irritate millions for profit, like Mays and spammers, I exempt from the "Don't speak ill of the dead" social more.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Folks below who read the article say this headline is just not correct.Let me take this opportunity to call the BING TV ad campaign the most repulsive since the one where Bill G wiggles his butt .
( Ugh , shudder !
) The only thing they could have done to make it worse is have Billy Mays screeching the already irritating voice track .
( People who irritate millions for profit , like Mays and spammers , I exempt from the " Do n't speak ill of the dead " social more .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Folks below who read the article say this headline is just not correct.Let me take this opportunity to call the BING TV ad campaign the most repulsive since the one where Bill G wiggles his butt.
(Ugh, shudder!
)The only thing they could have done to make it worse is have Billy Mays screeching the already irritating voice track.
(People who irritate millions for profit, like Mays and spammers, I exempt from the "Don't speak ill of the dead" social more.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566137</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567361</id>
	<title>iBing! coming in 2010</title>
	<author>InsertWittyNameHere</author>
	<datestamp>1246546380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Icant Believe It's Not Google!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Icant Believe It 's Not Google !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Icant Believe It's Not Google!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568131</id>
	<title>BING Is Not Google - Brilliant!</title>
	<author>flyingfsck</author>
	<datestamp>1246553700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thank you, you made my day!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you , you made my day !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you, you made my day!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566665</id>
	<title>Re:Too late. I already switched my default.</title>
	<author>riceboy50</author>
	<datestamp>1246541100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'll give the underdog a try so I don't have to be part of the herd.</p></div><p>Being contrarian just for the sake of it isn't a virtue. I know lots of people who do it just so they can act self-righteous.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll give the underdog a try so I do n't have to be part of the herd.Being contrarian just for the sake of it is n't a virtue .
I know lots of people who do it just so they can act self-righteous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll give the underdog a try so I don't have to be part of the herd.Being contrarian just for the sake of it isn't a virtue.
I know lots of people who do it just so they can act self-righteous.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566331</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567877</id>
	<title>Re:BING</title>
	<author>gparent</author>
	<datestamp>1246551540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why the fuck did you post that as AC. Honestly. You made my day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why the fuck did you post that as AC .
Honestly. You made my day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why the fuck did you post that as AC.
Honestly. You made my day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567097</id>
	<title>Re:Google Owns Search</title>
	<author>Doctor\_Jest</author>
	<datestamp>1246544520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"googling something" is a helluva lot less creepy than "binging something"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>" googling something " is a helluva lot less creepy than " binging something " : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"googling something" is a helluva lot less creepy than "binging something" :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28579373</id>
	<title>Re:Once more with feeling</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246714080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason for that is the search engine of choice isn't in your profile with Firefox, but as part of the browser settings, IIRC.</p><p>The Ubunru devs obviously decided that, when compiling the binary to be pushed out to you, that Google was the most chosen option. Remember: the Ubuntu updates are essentially an installation of the program from one computer pushed onto your computer, but without clearing your<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.profiles files.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason for that is the search engine of choice is n't in your profile with Firefox , but as part of the browser settings , IIRC.The Ubunru devs obviously decided that , when compiling the binary to be pushed out to you , that Google was the most chosen option .
Remember : the Ubuntu updates are essentially an installation of the program from one computer pushed onto your computer , but without clearing your .profiles files .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason for that is the search engine of choice isn't in your profile with Firefox, but as part of the browser settings, IIRC.The Ubunru devs obviously decided that, when compiling the binary to be pushed out to you, that Google was the most chosen option.
Remember: the Ubuntu updates are essentially an installation of the program from one computer pushed onto your computer, but without clearing your .profiles files.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567111</id>
	<title>Re:Once more with feeling</title>
	<author>gparent</author>
	<datestamp>1246544580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This isn't how you usually add it. It's labelled as Google.com when you first setup IE7/8.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't how you usually add it .
It 's labelled as Google.com when you first setup IE7/8 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't how you usually add it.
It's labelled as Google.com when you first setup IE7/8.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566303</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566927</id>
	<title>Is this different from malware and computer crime?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246543260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't my personal preference setting "my data", which is being violated for the purpose of monetary gain?<br>Would this be seen by a court as a crime?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't my personal preference setting " my data " , which is being violated for the purpose of monetary gain ? Would this be seen by a court as a crime ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't my personal preference setting "my data", which is being violated for the purpose of monetary gain?Would this be seen by a court as a crime?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567533</id>
	<title>This is relatively innocuous, compared to</title>
	<author>melted</author>
	<datestamp>1246548060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is relatively innocuous, compared to the thing everyone seems to be missing - namely, IE8's default setting due to which (if you don't disable it during install) it will send all your search queries, browsed page URLs (except in HTTPS mode and on the intranet) and a few other bits and pieces of data to Microsoft for the purpose of "providing you with related sites". Of course the real purpose is to collect data to feed to Bing and adCenter.</p><p>This is why Sergey Brin is running around scared, and this is why Google is releasing their own browser in a hurry (it too sends all your browsing data to Google, for the same purposes).</p><p>You see, IE still has something like 70\% marketshare, and all that browsing pattern data is hugely useful for things like:<br>1. Discovering new sites not yet within the crawl graph<br>2. Improving relevance of search results<br>3. Fighting spam<br>4. Establishing true popularity metrics for web resources.<br>5. Extracting behavioral information for the purposes of ad targeting.<br>6. Establishing (through correlation with a truth set) your gender, race, ethnicity, age, income bracket and preferences (for ad targeting, too).<br>7. Geolocation<br>8. Etc, etc.</p><p>This means MSFT now has ginormous amounts of data it didn't have before, and it can sic their PHDs on it and "fucking kill Google". It is no coincidence that they pushed IE8 as a "mandatory" update. I will not be surprised in the least if within a year Bing has substantially higher relevance than everyone else.</p><p>Google has no answer to this, short of paying Mozilla a ton of money to embed the same thing into Firefox. Since this pretty much amounts to spyware, I doubt Mozilla will go for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is relatively innocuous , compared to the thing everyone seems to be missing - namely , IE8 's default setting due to which ( if you do n't disable it during install ) it will send all your search queries , browsed page URLs ( except in HTTPS mode and on the intranet ) and a few other bits and pieces of data to Microsoft for the purpose of " providing you with related sites " .
Of course the real purpose is to collect data to feed to Bing and adCenter.This is why Sergey Brin is running around scared , and this is why Google is releasing their own browser in a hurry ( it too sends all your browsing data to Google , for the same purposes ) .You see , IE still has something like 70 \ % marketshare , and all that browsing pattern data is hugely useful for things like : 1 .
Discovering new sites not yet within the crawl graph2 .
Improving relevance of search results3 .
Fighting spam4 .
Establishing true popularity metrics for web resources.5 .
Extracting behavioral information for the purposes of ad targeting.6 .
Establishing ( through correlation with a truth set ) your gender , race , ethnicity , age , income bracket and preferences ( for ad targeting , too ) .7 .
Geolocation8. Etc , etc.This means MSFT now has ginormous amounts of data it did n't have before , and it can sic their PHDs on it and " fucking kill Google " .
It is no coincidence that they pushed IE8 as a " mandatory " update .
I will not be surprised in the least if within a year Bing has substantially higher relevance than everyone else.Google has no answer to this , short of paying Mozilla a ton of money to embed the same thing into Firefox .
Since this pretty much amounts to spyware , I doubt Mozilla will go for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is relatively innocuous, compared to the thing everyone seems to be missing - namely, IE8's default setting due to which (if you don't disable it during install) it will send all your search queries, browsed page URLs (except in HTTPS mode and on the intranet) and a few other bits and pieces of data to Microsoft for the purpose of "providing you with related sites".
Of course the real purpose is to collect data to feed to Bing and adCenter.This is why Sergey Brin is running around scared, and this is why Google is releasing their own browser in a hurry (it too sends all your browsing data to Google, for the same purposes).You see, IE still has something like 70\% marketshare, and all that browsing pattern data is hugely useful for things like:1.
Discovering new sites not yet within the crawl graph2.
Improving relevance of search results3.
Fighting spam4.
Establishing true popularity metrics for web resources.5.
Extracting behavioral information for the purposes of ad targeting.6.
Establishing (through correlation with a truth set) your gender, race, ethnicity, age, income bracket and preferences (for ad targeting, too).7.
Geolocation8. Etc, etc.This means MSFT now has ginormous amounts of data it didn't have before, and it can sic their PHDs on it and "fucking kill Google".
It is no coincidence that they pushed IE8 as a "mandatory" update.
I will not be surprised in the least if within a year Bing has substantially higher relevance than everyone else.Google has no answer to this, short of paying Mozilla a ton of money to embed the same thing into Firefox.
Since this pretty much amounts to spyware, I doubt Mozilla will go for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566169</id>
	<title>Surprise surprise...</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1246538280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh wait... no it isn't.</p><p>This is my biggest beef with Microsoft - thinking they know what you want more than you do, and installing crap on my PC(or changing preferences) without asking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh wait... no it is n't.This is my biggest beef with Microsoft - thinking they know what you want more than you do , and installing crap on my PC ( or changing preferences ) without asking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh wait... no it isn't.This is my biggest beef with Microsoft - thinking they know what you want more than you do, and installing crap on my PC(or changing preferences) without asking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566831</id>
	<title>Link to Page, funny</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246542540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not sure if this is funny or sad.  Seeing was believing:</p><p>Search Box &gt; "Find More Providers..."</p><p>Takes you here:<br>http://www.ieaddons.com/en/searchproviders</p><p>With the following<br>Bing, NYT, Wikipedia, Amazon, eBay, Yahoo, OneRiot, ESPN, Truveo, Google, Bidtopia, Freebase</p><p>Go Freebase and Bidtopia, you *almost* caught Google.  Keep up the good work!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure if this is funny or sad .
Seeing was believing : Search Box &gt; " Find More Providers... " Takes you here : http : //www.ieaddons.com/en/searchprovidersWith the followingBing , NYT , Wikipedia , Amazon , eBay , Yahoo , OneRiot , ESPN , Truveo , Google , Bidtopia , FreebaseGo Freebase and Bidtopia , you * almost * caught Google .
Keep up the good work !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure if this is funny or sad.
Seeing was believing:Search Box &gt; "Find More Providers..."Takes you here:http://www.ieaddons.com/en/searchprovidersWith the followingBing, NYT, Wikipedia, Amazon, eBay, Yahoo, OneRiot, ESPN, Truveo, Google, Bidtopia, FreebaseGo Freebase and Bidtopia, you *almost* caught Google.
Keep up the good work!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566303</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566663</id>
	<title>They're baaad</title>
	<author>dandart</author>
	<datestamp>1246541100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is why I don't use it. It changes stuff all the time, against my will. And tries to sue the people that make the OS I use!

They're goin' down..</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why I do n't use it .
It changes stuff all the time , against my will .
And tries to sue the people that make the OS I use !
They 're goin ' down. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why I don't use it.
It changes stuff all the time, against my will.
And tries to sue the people that make the OS I use!
They're goin' down..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569067</id>
	<title>Re:Once more with feeling</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246652460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agree with you here.  If someone is shouting at me, and the reason is not a bona fide reason to shout, nor is the area noisy, then I'm assuming the person is treating me as someone too stupid to understand spoken English at a normal voice.</p><p>Of course, since they assume I'm too stupid to hear them in a normal voice, I assume their product is way more sophisticated than I can ever grok, so I pass it by.</p><p>I agree with the don't speak ill of the dead exception.  Mays contributed NOTHING to the benefit of society except by being a very irritating huckster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agree with you here .
If someone is shouting at me , and the reason is not a bona fide reason to shout , nor is the area noisy , then I 'm assuming the person is treating me as someone too stupid to understand spoken English at a normal voice.Of course , since they assume I 'm too stupid to hear them in a normal voice , I assume their product is way more sophisticated than I can ever grok , so I pass it by.I agree with the do n't speak ill of the dead exception .
Mays contributed NOTHING to the benefit of society except by being a very irritating huckster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agree with you here.
If someone is shouting at me, and the reason is not a bona fide reason to shout, nor is the area noisy, then I'm assuming the person is treating me as someone too stupid to understand spoken English at a normal voice.Of course, since they assume I'm too stupid to hear them in a normal voice, I assume their product is way more sophisticated than I can ever grok, so I pass it by.I agree with the don't speak ill of the dead exception.
Mays contributed NOTHING to the benefit of society except by being a very irritating huckster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567701</id>
	<title>Re:I just don't get it</title>
	<author>nlawalker</author>
	<datestamp>1246549800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why in hell do people continue to pour money into this monstrosity of a software company?</p></div><p>Because everyone else does - namely, the people who make the software I like to use and that I know how to use, and all my family and friends, with whom it is easier to share the same operating system.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why in hell do people continue to pour money into this monstrosity of a software company ? Because everyone else does - namely , the people who make the software I like to use and that I know how to use , and all my family and friends , with whom it is easier to share the same operating system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why in hell do people continue to pour money into this monstrosity of a software company?Because everyone else does - namely, the people who make the software I like to use and that I know how to use, and all my family and friends, with whom it is easier to share the same operating system.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567061</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28570639</id>
	<title>Bing vs. Yahoo! vs. Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246629420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wish everyone would leave my search alone. It isn't just Microsoft. I have to fight with Yahoo! and Google too. Yahoo! tries to sneak in a change when I install some open source programs. Firefox randomly switches to Google when ever it thinks I'm not looking.</p><p>So how is Bing different?</p><p>Bill B</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish everyone would leave my search alone .
It is n't just Microsoft .
I have to fight with Yahoo !
and Google too .
Yahoo ! tries to sneak in a change when I install some open source programs .
Firefox randomly switches to Google when ever it thinks I 'm not looking.So how is Bing different ? Bill B</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish everyone would leave my search alone.
It isn't just Microsoft.
I have to fight with Yahoo!
and Google too.
Yahoo! tries to sneak in a change when I install some open source programs.
Firefox randomly switches to Google when ever it thinks I'm not looking.So how is Bing different?Bill B</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566841</id>
	<title>Re:it is all happening agian</title>
	<author>Informative</author>
	<datestamp>1246542600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are OSes such as you are asking for.  MS is just not one of them.
<p><div class="quote"><p>If I pay for a machine, and I pay for the software. then I don't want it changing the options. I want to set what will happen. And I want it to work efficiently, without useless overhead put in simply to increase bragging rights of the vendor.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are OSes such as you are asking for .
MS is just not one of them .
If I pay for a machine , and I pay for the software .
then I do n't want it changing the options .
I want to set what will happen .
And I want it to work efficiently , without useless overhead put in simply to increase bragging rights of the vendor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are OSes such as you are asking for.
MS is just not one of them.
If I pay for a machine, and I pay for the software.
then I don't want it changing the options.
I want to set what will happen.
And I want it to work efficiently, without useless overhead put in simply to increase bragging rights of the vendor.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568061</id>
	<title>Once again, a dumb name.</title>
	<author>Drone69</author>
	<datestamp>1246553040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But I like Bing. As much as like my Zune.

Srsly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But I like Bing .
As much as like my Zune .
Srsly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I like Bing.
As much as like my Zune.
Srsly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566335</id>
	<title>I wonder what we'd say if the shoe was on...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246539240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder what he'd say if the shoe was on the other foot.</p><p>This quote in particular annoyed me:</p><p>"I was relieved that Google prevented the change, but I couldn't recall asking the company to do so."</p><p>If he'd installed the google toolbar (which by default sets your search to google), would he have been so similiarly "relieved" if Microsoft had popped up a warning message that "An attempt has been made to switch your default search away from Microsoft Search"?</p><p>Somehow I doubt it.</p><p>Instead I suspect we'd see a rant about Microsoft putting up scary warnings if you try to use an alternative search. But I'm just speculating on that... but the facts are just as bad:</p><p>He doesn't actually know what caused the search engine change attempt. All he did was approximately coincide the warning popup with his event manager stating that the windows search service started. But this all happened within a short time frame of 'booting his PC up' so he doesn't know. (Gee Windows Search Service started up a short time after the PC started... big surprise... and then this popup... it must be connected. Yeah, because its not like EVERYTHING ELSE in his computer wasn't going off at that point in time... much of it not leaving traces in the event log either.</p><p>And, Hell, because google blocked the change, (to his great relief) I doubt he actually even KNOWs what it was going to be changed to. So really, I doubt he even knows it was going to be set to Bing.</p><p>I'm not saying it wasn't going to be Bing. And if it was the first time he'd booted his PC after installing Windows search, then yeah, I could see it happening more or less as he described. Although by the act of installing Windows search, aren't you implicitly requesting to, you know, use Microsoft search... so this is hardly 'evil'.</p><p>In any case, I've had windows search for a long time and its never surreptitiously tried changing my default search engine. (And it would have gotten away with it too since I don't give google the run of my system either.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder what he 'd say if the shoe was on the other foot.This quote in particular annoyed me : " I was relieved that Google prevented the change , but I could n't recall asking the company to do so .
" If he 'd installed the google toolbar ( which by default sets your search to google ) , would he have been so similiarly " relieved " if Microsoft had popped up a warning message that " An attempt has been made to switch your default search away from Microsoft Search " ? Somehow I doubt it.Instead I suspect we 'd see a rant about Microsoft putting up scary warnings if you try to use an alternative search .
But I 'm just speculating on that... but the facts are just as bad : He does n't actually know what caused the search engine change attempt .
All he did was approximately coincide the warning popup with his event manager stating that the windows search service started .
But this all happened within a short time frame of 'booting his PC up ' so he does n't know .
( Gee Windows Search Service started up a short time after the PC started... big surprise... and then this popup... it must be connected .
Yeah , because its not like EVERYTHING ELSE in his computer was n't going off at that point in time... much of it not leaving traces in the event log either.And , Hell , because google blocked the change , ( to his great relief ) I doubt he actually even KNOWs what it was going to be changed to .
So really , I doubt he even knows it was going to be set to Bing.I 'm not saying it was n't going to be Bing .
And if it was the first time he 'd booted his PC after installing Windows search , then yeah , I could see it happening more or less as he described .
Although by the act of installing Windows search , are n't you implicitly requesting to , you know , use Microsoft search... so this is hardly 'evil'.In any case , I 've had windows search for a long time and its never surreptitiously tried changing my default search engine .
( And it would have gotten away with it too since I do n't give google the run of my system either .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder what he'd say if the shoe was on the other foot.This quote in particular annoyed me:"I was relieved that Google prevented the change, but I couldn't recall asking the company to do so.
"If he'd installed the google toolbar (which by default sets your search to google), would he have been so similiarly "relieved" if Microsoft had popped up a warning message that "An attempt has been made to switch your default search away from Microsoft Search"?Somehow I doubt it.Instead I suspect we'd see a rant about Microsoft putting up scary warnings if you try to use an alternative search.
But I'm just speculating on that... but the facts are just as bad:He doesn't actually know what caused the search engine change attempt.
All he did was approximately coincide the warning popup with his event manager stating that the windows search service started.
But this all happened within a short time frame of 'booting his PC up' so he doesn't know.
(Gee Windows Search Service started up a short time after the PC started... big surprise... and then this popup... it must be connected.
Yeah, because its not like EVERYTHING ELSE in his computer wasn't going off at that point in time... much of it not leaving traces in the event log either.And, Hell, because google blocked the change, (to his great relief) I doubt he actually even KNOWs what it was going to be changed to.
So really, I doubt he even knows it was going to be set to Bing.I'm not saying it wasn't going to be Bing.
And if it was the first time he'd booted his PC after installing Windows search, then yeah, I could see it happening more or less as he described.
Although by the act of installing Windows search, aren't you implicitly requesting to, you know, use Microsoft search... so this is hardly 'evil'.In any case, I've had windows search for a long time and its never surreptitiously tried changing my default search engine.
(And it would have gotten away with it too since I don't give google the run of my system either.
)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568099</id>
	<title>Re:How is this news?</title>
	<author>moxley</author>
	<datestamp>1246553340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree; if we haven't learned by now to carefully pay attention to the click-thrus when installing anything (especially anything downloaded for free) then a change in search defaults may be fairly mild compared to some of the other stuff that can end up installed on our machines.</p><p>I have been wondering how the business arrangements for such things work; you mention Ask toolbar - which I have seen trying to sneak it's way onto my machines with paid software, (Nero 9 is one of these, IIRC)...The thing that I keep wondering is: why would a company that has a product with such a good reputation include this stuff selected-by-default? Are they really being paid that much money to include it? Don't they realize it kind of annoys and pisses people off? I really don't like it, it makes me feel like I have to be doubly careful with dealing with anything I get from that company. I'm assuming there must be some sort of significant payoff in it for them.</p><p>I realize that these search competitors have to do something to compete with Google's dominance; i mean, their name has morphed into a verb for all things search - (kind of like "coke" for all things cola) - but I would think that there has to be a better way to get people to try a new search engine out rather than using this method, which I imagine serves to kind of give a negative association with the product, (especially among technically savvy people - at least, it does for me - having to uncheck "install ask.com search bar" when I am trying to install something completely unrelated just makes me think their service must not be that great because they have to pay to sneak on to people's machines).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree ; if we have n't learned by now to carefully pay attention to the click-thrus when installing anything ( especially anything downloaded for free ) then a change in search defaults may be fairly mild compared to some of the other stuff that can end up installed on our machines.I have been wondering how the business arrangements for such things work ; you mention Ask toolbar - which I have seen trying to sneak it 's way onto my machines with paid software , ( Nero 9 is one of these , IIRC ) ...The thing that I keep wondering is : why would a company that has a product with such a good reputation include this stuff selected-by-default ?
Are they really being paid that much money to include it ?
Do n't they realize it kind of annoys and pisses people off ?
I really do n't like it , it makes me feel like I have to be doubly careful with dealing with anything I get from that company .
I 'm assuming there must be some sort of significant payoff in it for them.I realize that these search competitors have to do something to compete with Google 's dominance ; i mean , their name has morphed into a verb for all things search - ( kind of like " coke " for all things cola ) - but I would think that there has to be a better way to get people to try a new search engine out rather than using this method , which I imagine serves to kind of give a negative association with the product , ( especially among technically savvy people - at least , it does for me - having to uncheck " install ask.com search bar " when I am trying to install something completely unrelated just makes me think their service must not be that great because they have to pay to sneak on to people 's machines ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree; if we haven't learned by now to carefully pay attention to the click-thrus when installing anything (especially anything downloaded for free) then a change in search defaults may be fairly mild compared to some of the other stuff that can end up installed on our machines.I have been wondering how the business arrangements for such things work; you mention Ask toolbar - which I have seen trying to sneak it's way onto my machines with paid software, (Nero 9 is one of these, IIRC)...The thing that I keep wondering is: why would a company that has a product with such a good reputation include this stuff selected-by-default?
Are they really being paid that much money to include it?
Don't they realize it kind of annoys and pisses people off?
I really don't like it, it makes me feel like I have to be doubly careful with dealing with anything I get from that company.
I'm assuming there must be some sort of significant payoff in it for them.I realize that these search competitors have to do something to compete with Google's dominance; i mean, their name has morphed into a verb for all things search - (kind of like "coke" for all things cola) - but I would think that there has to be a better way to get people to try a new search engine out rather than using this method, which I imagine serves to kind of give a negative association with the product, (especially among technically savvy people - at least, it does for me - having to uncheck "install ask.com search bar" when I am trying to install something completely unrelated just makes me think their service must not be that great because they have to pay to sneak on to people's machines).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566435</id>
	<title>Everybody does it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246539780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The IE search default is Live Search (now Bing)...  I've installed stuff before and seen it changed to Google without my intervention.  Along with the prompt to install Google Toolbar alongside completely unrelated products that have nothing to do with Google.</p><p>Not that I care that much...  I don't use IE anyway.  Just noting that I've seen it happen, this sort of thing has gone on for a long time and Microsoft is not the only one to do it.  Nor is it restricted to search.  During the browser wars of old I recall every browser would prompt you to set it as default when you opened it.  Same goes for MP3 or video players and file associations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The IE search default is Live Search ( now Bing ) ... I 've installed stuff before and seen it changed to Google without my intervention .
Along with the prompt to install Google Toolbar alongside completely unrelated products that have nothing to do with Google.Not that I care that much... I do n't use IE anyway .
Just noting that I 've seen it happen , this sort of thing has gone on for a long time and Microsoft is not the only one to do it .
Nor is it restricted to search .
During the browser wars of old I recall every browser would prompt you to set it as default when you opened it .
Same goes for MP3 or video players and file associations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The IE search default is Live Search (now Bing)...  I've installed stuff before and seen it changed to Google without my intervention.
Along with the prompt to install Google Toolbar alongside completely unrelated products that have nothing to do with Google.Not that I care that much...  I don't use IE anyway.
Just noting that I've seen it happen, this sort of thing has gone on for a long time and Microsoft is not the only one to do it.
Nor is it restricted to search.
During the browser wars of old I recall every browser would prompt you to set it as default when you opened it.
Same goes for MP3 or video players and file associations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567045</id>
	<title>Bill's response</title>
	<author>wonderboss</author>
	<datestamp>1246544040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm shocked, Shocked! to find antitrust activities going on this establishmentl</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm shocked , Shocked !
to find antitrust activities going on this establishmentl</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm shocked, Shocked!
to find antitrust activities going on this establishmentl</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566167</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567791</id>
	<title>Is this really true though?</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1246550760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have both Windows Vista and Windows 7 RC1 running, have installed IE8, Silverlight, and have all my updates turned on... and it hasn't happened.  My default IE8 search is Bing, but that's only because I set it that way.  What's funny is that when I installed Google Chrome, it looked at my IE settings and asked me if I wanted to keep using Bing, to which I replied 'NO'.</p><p>I'm sorta wondering if this dog really bites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have both Windows Vista and Windows 7 RC1 running , have installed IE8 , Silverlight , and have all my updates turned on... and it has n't happened .
My default IE8 search is Bing , but that 's only because I set it that way .
What 's funny is that when I installed Google Chrome , it looked at my IE settings and asked me if I wanted to keep using Bing , to which I replied 'NO'.I 'm sorta wondering if this dog really bites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have both Windows Vista and Windows 7 RC1 running, have installed IE8, Silverlight, and have all my updates turned on... and it hasn't happened.
My default IE8 search is Bing, but that's only because I set it that way.
What's funny is that when I installed Google Chrome, it looked at my IE settings and asked me if I wanted to keep using Bing, to which I replied 'NO'.I'm sorta wondering if this dog really bites.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567579</id>
	<title>Re:Once more with feeling</title>
	<author>cyberzephyr</author>
	<datestamp>1246548660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I saw this a few weeks or months ago and i did not think about it because i automatically changed it back to my Personal Favorite Search Engine.  I have used Windows since 3.1 and i have always just changed things back to the WAY I HAD IT.</p><p>Someday's these guy's even piss off their hardcore fans<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I saw this a few weeks or months ago and i did not think about it because i automatically changed it back to my Personal Favorite Search Engine .
I have used Windows since 3.1 and i have always just changed things back to the WAY I HAD IT.Someday 's these guy 's even piss off their hardcore fans : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I saw this a few weeks or months ago and i did not think about it because i automatically changed it back to my Personal Favorite Search Engine.
I have used Windows since 3.1 and i have always just changed things back to the WAY I HAD IT.Someday's these guy's even piss off their hardcore fans :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566137</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567993</id>
	<title>Re:BING</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246552560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But It's Not Google</p><p>repetitive</p><p>and a valid reason not to use it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But It 's Not Googlerepetitiveand a valid reason not to use it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But It's Not Googlerepetitiveand a valid reason not to use it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566445</id>
	<title>Define "caught"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246539840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The singular piece of evidence he provides is a sole entry in the windows event log that the search service has started.</p><p>I wouldn't put something like this past MS, but the story got nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The singular piece of evidence he provides is a sole entry in the windows event log that the search service has started.I would n't put something like this past MS , but the story got nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The singular piece of evidence he provides is a sole entry in the windows event log that the search service has started.I wouldn't put something like this past MS, but the story got nothing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28577765</id>
	<title>Re:Want more ad money? Bash Microsoft !</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1246642740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry slashdot, this ones your fault.</p><p>Because websites like slashdot make it easy for every half wit in IT who can install Ubuntu think he's a geek.  So he writes about stupid shit he doesn't understand as if he's authoritive on the subject, and sends his blog link to slashdot for some spamvertising.</p><p>Then comes the next problem, half of slashdot's  'editors' are just like him.  Linux fanboys, half of which haven't seen a shell prompt in their lives, but because they installed compiz on their Ubuntu box using some guide they found via google, they too think they are geeks.</p><p>You assume slashdot is read by geeks.  Slashdot hasn't been read by more than one handful geeks in at least 5 years, hasn't had more than 2 editors that qualify as geeks in its entire existence.</p><p>The problem is, these people can't turn in their geek cards.  They aren't geeks.  They are social rejects/bottom feeders who don't fit in anywhere else and own a computer, therefor they must be geeks, at least in the eyes of the general public.</p><p>Sorry to break it to you, but very few slashdot readers actually qualify as geeks.  Especially by your definition, which I agree with.  Patching a kernel with the source is for pussies.  A real geek can patch a kernel, while the host is running using a debugger without anyone ever noticing.</p><p>Running a makefile someone else wrote or installing a package via apt-get does not make you a geek, sorry to burst your bubbles guys.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry slashdot , this ones your fault.Because websites like slashdot make it easy for every half wit in IT who can install Ubuntu think he 's a geek .
So he writes about stupid shit he does n't understand as if he 's authoritive on the subject , and sends his blog link to slashdot for some spamvertising.Then comes the next problem , half of slashdot 's 'editors ' are just like him .
Linux fanboys , half of which have n't seen a shell prompt in their lives , but because they installed compiz on their Ubuntu box using some guide they found via google , they too think they are geeks.You assume slashdot is read by geeks .
Slashdot has n't been read by more than one handful geeks in at least 5 years , has n't had more than 2 editors that qualify as geeks in its entire existence.The problem is , these people ca n't turn in their geek cards .
They are n't geeks .
They are social rejects/bottom feeders who do n't fit in anywhere else and own a computer , therefor they must be geeks , at least in the eyes of the general public.Sorry to break it to you , but very few slashdot readers actually qualify as geeks .
Especially by your definition , which I agree with .
Patching a kernel with the source is for pussies .
A real geek can patch a kernel , while the host is running using a debugger without anyone ever noticing.Running a makefile someone else wrote or installing a package via apt-get does not make you a geek , sorry to burst your bubbles guys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry slashdot, this ones your fault.Because websites like slashdot make it easy for every half wit in IT who can install Ubuntu think he's a geek.
So he writes about stupid shit he doesn't understand as if he's authoritive on the subject, and sends his blog link to slashdot for some spamvertising.Then comes the next problem, half of slashdot's  'editors' are just like him.
Linux fanboys, half of which haven't seen a shell prompt in their lives, but because they installed compiz on their Ubuntu box using some guide they found via google, they too think they are geeks.You assume slashdot is read by geeks.
Slashdot hasn't been read by more than one handful geeks in at least 5 years, hasn't had more than 2 editors that qualify as geeks in its entire existence.The problem is, these people can't turn in their geek cards.
They aren't geeks.
They are social rejects/bottom feeders who don't fit in anywhere else and own a computer, therefor they must be geeks, at least in the eyes of the general public.Sorry to break it to you, but very few slashdot readers actually qualify as geeks.
Especially by your definition, which I agree with.
Patching a kernel with the source is for pussies.
A real geek can patch a kernel, while the host is running using a debugger without anyone ever noticing.Running a makefile someone else wrote or installing a package via apt-get does not make you a geek, sorry to burst your bubbles guys.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569667</id>
	<title>Re:Google Owns Search</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1246617180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But they sure, at one point in history, had the market cornered. Just like Xerox and photocopy, or Phillips and screwdrivers. I don't think Xerox still has the lion's share of the photocopy market (after all, any halfway decent laserprinter/scanner combination offers that today), and I'm not even sure whether Phillips makes screwdrivers.</p><p>Such brand/product identification happens mostly when the market leader is the first (or the first well known) producer of a certain good. That doesn't mean it stays that way forever, especially when the term and the brand become disconnected. I'm fairly sure people still call vaccuming "hoovering", despite using some cheap vaccuum, not even thinking about Hoover anymore. Likewise, you'll have people asking you to xerox something for them (or fedex it to them), without caring or even thinking whether the brandsd they mention are involved at all in the process.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But they sure , at one point in history , had the market cornered .
Just like Xerox and photocopy , or Phillips and screwdrivers .
I do n't think Xerox still has the lion 's share of the photocopy market ( after all , any halfway decent laserprinter/scanner combination offers that today ) , and I 'm not even sure whether Phillips makes screwdrivers.Such brand/product identification happens mostly when the market leader is the first ( or the first well known ) producer of a certain good .
That does n't mean it stays that way forever , especially when the term and the brand become disconnected .
I 'm fairly sure people still call vaccuming " hoovering " , despite using some cheap vaccuum , not even thinking about Hoover anymore .
Likewise , you 'll have people asking you to xerox something for them ( or fedex it to them ) , without caring or even thinking whether the brandsd they mention are involved at all in the process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But they sure, at one point in history, had the market cornered.
Just like Xerox and photocopy, or Phillips and screwdrivers.
I don't think Xerox still has the lion's share of the photocopy market (after all, any halfway decent laserprinter/scanner combination offers that today), and I'm not even sure whether Phillips makes screwdrivers.Such brand/product identification happens mostly when the market leader is the first (or the first well known) producer of a certain good.
That doesn't mean it stays that way forever, especially when the term and the brand become disconnected.
I'm fairly sure people still call vaccuming "hoovering", despite using some cheap vaccuum, not even thinking about Hoover anymore.
Likewise, you'll have people asking you to xerox something for them (or fedex it to them), without caring or even thinking whether the brandsd they mention are involved at all in the process.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566701</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568565</id>
	<title>Re:BING</title>
	<author>perlwhiz</author>
	<datestamp>1246558920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://bingisnotgoogle.com/" title="bingisnotgoogle.com" rel="nofollow">bingisnotgoogle.com</a> [bingisnotgoogle.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>bingisnotgoogle.com [ bingisnotgoogle.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bingisnotgoogle.com [bingisnotgoogle.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567449</id>
	<title>Re:BING</title>
	<author>alanQuatermain</author>
	<datestamp>1246547160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You say that like it's a joke, but it's probably true...</htmltext>
<tokenext>You say that like it 's a joke , but it 's probably true.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You say that like it's a joke, but it's probably true...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28577781</id>
	<title>Re:Want more ad money? Bash Microsoft !</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1246642920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Still pretty easy if you actually know how to use a debugger.  Interestingly enough they make it real easy to sift through a 2gig OS to find out when its doing something and why, especially after you go download the symbols for your OS from the provider<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Still pretty easy if you actually know how to use a debugger .
Interestingly enough they make it real easy to sift through a 2gig OS to find out when its doing something and why , especially after you go download the symbols for your OS from the provider ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Still pretty easy if you actually know how to use a debugger.
Interestingly enough they make it real easy to sift through a 2gig OS to find out when its doing something and why, especially after you go download the symbols for your OS from the provider ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566251</id>
	<title>So...</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1246538700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So MS does this to attempt to trick people into using Bing, yet Google is the one with the antitrust investigation? Seriously, who came up with this? A 5 year old could see the difference between MS and Google and see that MS is obviously abusing its OS monopoly while Google is simply the best at what it does.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So MS does this to attempt to trick people into using Bing , yet Google is the one with the antitrust investigation ?
Seriously , who came up with this ?
A 5 year old could see the difference between MS and Google and see that MS is obviously abusing its OS monopoly while Google is simply the best at what it does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So MS does this to attempt to trick people into using Bing, yet Google is the one with the antitrust investigation?
Seriously, who came up with this?
A 5 year old could see the difference between MS and Google and see that MS is obviously abusing its OS monopoly while Google is simply the best at what it does.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566543</id>
	<title>Resistance is futile</title>
	<author>code4fun</author>
	<datestamp>1246540380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just <i>Bing</i> it! Thank God I'm on a Unix box.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just Bing it !
Thank God I 'm on a Unix box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just Bing it!
Thank God I'm on a Unix box.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569119</id>
	<title>Re:BING</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246653240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bing  Google</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing Google</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing  Google</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567689</id>
	<title>You think that's bad?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246549620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You think that's bad? I installed Linux once and it didn't let me install any of the software I wanted to use!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You think that 's bad ?
I installed Linux once and it did n't let me install any of the software I wanted to use !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You think that's bad?
I installed Linux once and it didn't let me install any of the software I wanted to use!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28577791</id>
	<title>Re:Too late. I already switched my default.</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1246643040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, you are trying MSN Search because on the 3rd (4th?) name change it finally sounded cool?</p><p>Bing isn't a new search engine, its a new website theme.  Trying unix or a non-apple mp3 player because it might be better is one thing.</p><p>Trying MSN search because they changed then name AGAIN is just silly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , you are trying MSN Search because on the 3rd ( 4th ?
) name change it finally sounded cool ? Bing is n't a new search engine , its a new website theme .
Trying unix or a non-apple mp3 player because it might be better is one thing.Trying MSN search because they changed then name AGAIN is just silly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, you are trying MSN Search because on the 3rd (4th?
) name change it finally sounded cool?Bing isn't a new search engine, its a new website theme.
Trying unix or a non-apple mp3 player because it might be better is one thing.Trying MSN search because they changed then name AGAIN is just silly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566331</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566299</id>
	<title>Goody</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246539060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We haven't had a clear-cut antitrust case against them since... I'm not really sure. I mean the TomTom vfat issue is pretty close...</p><p>Anyway, TFA didn't explicitly determine that MS was responsible, and at this point I find it difficult to believe that MS is this stupid. Still, we can hope. Maybe MS will get that antitrust watch rescinded.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have n't had a clear-cut antitrust case against them since... I 'm not really sure .
I mean the TomTom vfat issue is pretty close...Anyway , TFA did n't explicitly determine that MS was responsible , and at this point I find it difficult to believe that MS is this stupid .
Still , we can hope .
Maybe MS will get that antitrust watch rescinded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We haven't had a clear-cut antitrust case against them since... I'm not really sure.
I mean the TomTom vfat issue is pretty close...Anyway, TFA didn't explicitly determine that MS was responsible, and at this point I find it difficult to believe that MS is this stupid.
Still, we can hope.
Maybe MS will get that antitrust watch rescinded.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28574715</id>
	<title>It was Google</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1246612800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was apparently a google search update that tripped the warning.  A commenter on the guy's own page got the same popup and let the change go through, just to see what was going on.  Lo and behold, it was Google and nothing else.</p><p>
&nbsp; <br>If you look just below the "search" service the author points out, there is a "gupdate" service that ran right before it.  That is Google update, and that is what triggered the popup.</p><p>
&nbsp; <br>This isn't some insidious new attack by M$, it's a dumbass wannabe tech journalist who couldn't be bothered to do an ounce of research, he just wanted to jump on the "bash microsoft" bandwagon.  Google's search change alert is just a bit cautious, and triggers on a GOOGLE search update.</p><p>
&nbsp; <br>Microsoft knows better than to do something like this, they'll use all sorts of dirty tricks, but something like this would land them in hot water before you can say "Bing".</p><p>
&nbsp; <br>The author of this article should repeat my sig to himself in the mirror three times daily.  That might help him out a bit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was apparently a google search update that tripped the warning .
A commenter on the guy 's own page got the same popup and let the change go through , just to see what was going on .
Lo and behold , it was Google and nothing else .
  If you look just below the " search " service the author points out , there is a " gupdate " service that ran right before it .
That is Google update , and that is what triggered the popup .
  This is n't some insidious new attack by M $ , it 's a dumbass wannabe tech journalist who could n't be bothered to do an ounce of research , he just wanted to jump on the " bash microsoft " bandwagon .
Google 's search change alert is just a bit cautious , and triggers on a GOOGLE search update .
  Microsoft knows better than to do something like this , they 'll use all sorts of dirty tricks , but something like this would land them in hot water before you can say " Bing " .
  The author of this article should repeat my sig to himself in the mirror three times daily .
That might help him out a bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was apparently a google search update that tripped the warning.
A commenter on the guy's own page got the same popup and let the change go through, just to see what was going on.
Lo and behold, it was Google and nothing else.
  If you look just below the "search" service the author points out, there is a "gupdate" service that ran right before it.
That is Google update, and that is what triggered the popup.
  This isn't some insidious new attack by M$, it's a dumbass wannabe tech journalist who couldn't be bothered to do an ounce of research, he just wanted to jump on the "bash microsoft" bandwagon.
Google's search change alert is just a bit cautious, and triggers on a GOOGLE search update.
  Microsoft knows better than to do something like this, they'll use all sorts of dirty tricks, but something like this would land them in hot water before you can say "Bing".
  The author of this article should repeat my sig to himself in the mirror three times daily.
That might help him out a bit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567019</id>
	<title>Now we know the rest of the story</title>
	<author>Informative</author>
	<datestamp>1246543800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As Paul Harvey would say
<p>
"Bing expands its piece of the search market pie in June": <a href="http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/07/bing-grabs-a-larger-piece-of-the-search-market-pie-in-june.ars" title="arstechnica.com" rel="nofollow">http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/07/bing-grabs-a-larger-piece-of-the-search-market-pie-in-june.ars</a> [arstechnica.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As Paul Harvey would say " Bing expands its piece of the search market pie in June " : http : //arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/07/bing-grabs-a-larger-piece-of-the-search-market-pie-in-june.ars [ arstechnica.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As Paul Harvey would say

"Bing expands its piece of the search market pie in June": http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/07/bing-grabs-a-larger-piece-of-the-search-market-pie-in-june.ars [arstechnica.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566509</id>
	<title>it is all happening agian</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1246540200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is really annoying.  If I pay for a machine, and I pay for the software. then I don't want it changing the options.  I want to set what will happen.  And I want it to work efficiently, without useless overhead put in simply to increase bragging rights of the vendor.
<p>
I have noticed that IE7 and IE8, anything typed into the URL field will go to Bing, unless it is 100\% qualified.  I know MS has always wanted everything to go through it's servers, but now it seems it is getting more extreme.  If you don't type in HTTP it will go to bing.  I also recall a time, or maybe not, when you could the URL field to go to google.  In any case, the idea that a URL will go to a search engine never made sense to me.  If the URL is not sufficiently qualified, then it should return a 404.  The security risk of expecting a URL to return something other than the intended target is certainly a securty risk.
</p><p>
But no one else is any better.  I have noticed on Adobe updates that they try to sneak in Yahoo tool bar.  Apple will change the default browser to Safari with any little excuse, almost at every reboot.  I don't know what google is doing, but since I prefer it to other things, I haven't had any issues in trying to get rid of it.  I suspect when they begin to lose market share, all hell will break loose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is really annoying .
If I pay for a machine , and I pay for the software .
then I do n't want it changing the options .
I want to set what will happen .
And I want it to work efficiently , without useless overhead put in simply to increase bragging rights of the vendor .
I have noticed that IE7 and IE8 , anything typed into the URL field will go to Bing , unless it is 100 \ % qualified .
I know MS has always wanted everything to go through it 's servers , but now it seems it is getting more extreme .
If you do n't type in HTTP it will go to bing .
I also recall a time , or maybe not , when you could the URL field to go to google .
In any case , the idea that a URL will go to a search engine never made sense to me .
If the URL is not sufficiently qualified , then it should return a 404 .
The security risk of expecting a URL to return something other than the intended target is certainly a securty risk .
But no one else is any better .
I have noticed on Adobe updates that they try to sneak in Yahoo tool bar .
Apple will change the default browser to Safari with any little excuse , almost at every reboot .
I do n't know what google is doing , but since I prefer it to other things , I have n't had any issues in trying to get rid of it .
I suspect when they begin to lose market share , all hell will break loose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is really annoying.
If I pay for a machine, and I pay for the software.
then I don't want it changing the options.
I want to set what will happen.
And I want it to work efficiently, without useless overhead put in simply to increase bragging rights of the vendor.
I have noticed that IE7 and IE8, anything typed into the URL field will go to Bing, unless it is 100\% qualified.
I know MS has always wanted everything to go through it's servers, but now it seems it is getting more extreme.
If you don't type in HTTP it will go to bing.
I also recall a time, or maybe not, when you could the URL field to go to google.
In any case, the idea that a URL will go to a search engine never made sense to me.
If the URL is not sufficiently qualified, then it should return a 404.
The security risk of expecting a URL to return something other than the intended target is certainly a securty risk.
But no one else is any better.
I have noticed on Adobe updates that they try to sneak in Yahoo tool bar.
Apple will change the default browser to Safari with any little excuse, almost at every reboot.
I don't know what google is doing, but since I prefer it to other things, I haven't had any issues in trying to get rid of it.
I suspect when they begin to lose market share, all hell will break loose.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569021</id>
	<title>Re:Once more with feeling</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246651560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Still better that Safari on Mac which doesn't allow anything but Google as the search engine.</i></p><p>You meant: Still better <b>than</b> Safari? Are you a native speaker? If not, you are excused.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Still better that Safari on Mac which does n't allow anything but Google as the search engine.You meant : Still better than Safari ?
Are you a native speaker ?
If not , you are excused .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Still better that Safari on Mac which doesn't allow anything but Google as the search engine.You meant: Still better than Safari?
Are you a native speaker?
If not, you are excused.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568009</id>
	<title>Re:Once more with feeling</title>
	<author>fullgandoo</author>
	<datestamp>1246552680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Still better that Safari on Mac which doesn't allow anything but Google as the search engine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Still better that Safari on Mac which does n't allow anything but Google as the search engine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Still better that Safari on Mac which doesn't allow anything but Google as the search engine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566303</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566901</id>
	<title>Re:Want more ad money? Bash Microsoft !</title>
	<author>ammorais</author>
	<datestamp>1246542960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Funny how "geeks" here accept such crappy evidence as proof of any wrong doing. What happened to the geeks to could reverse engineer executables and actually point to the specific CPU instruction that actually did it?</p><p>Take the FUD surrounding DRM, take this crappy story, no geek has ever been able to point to that level of proof. Seems like the virus and malware authors being crappy programmers are happily able to reverse engineer windows binaries and find bugs.</p><p>Seems like F/OSS world is filled with wussies who need source code to figure things out. Ever heard of a game crack author crying about not having source code?  LOL.. turn in your geek cards...</p></div><p>

You are totally right, but considering Microsoft past, I only say it's completely normal this kind of suspicion reaction.<br>

Also If it's true, it probably means that Microsoft made their math about possible anti-trust lawsuits against the probable Bing revenues, and guess what are the results.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny how " geeks " here accept such crappy evidence as proof of any wrong doing .
What happened to the geeks to could reverse engineer executables and actually point to the specific CPU instruction that actually did it ? Take the FUD surrounding DRM , take this crappy story , no geek has ever been able to point to that level of proof .
Seems like the virus and malware authors being crappy programmers are happily able to reverse engineer windows binaries and find bugs.Seems like F/OSS world is filled with wussies who need source code to figure things out .
Ever heard of a game crack author crying about not having source code ?
LOL.. turn in your geek cards.. . You are totally right , but considering Microsoft past , I only say it 's completely normal this kind of suspicion reaction .
Also If it 's true , it probably means that Microsoft made their math about possible anti-trust lawsuits against the probable Bing revenues , and guess what are the results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny how "geeks" here accept such crappy evidence as proof of any wrong doing.
What happened to the geeks to could reverse engineer executables and actually point to the specific CPU instruction that actually did it?Take the FUD surrounding DRM, take this crappy story, no geek has ever been able to point to that level of proof.
Seems like the virus and malware authors being crappy programmers are happily able to reverse engineer windows binaries and find bugs.Seems like F/OSS world is filled with wussies who need source code to figure things out.
Ever heard of a game crack author crying about not having source code?
LOL.. turn in your geek cards...

You are totally right, but considering Microsoft past, I only say it's completely normal this kind of suspicion reaction.
Also If it's true, it probably means that Microsoft made their math about possible anti-trust lawsuits against the probable Bing revenues, and guess what are the results.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28571267</id>
	<title>You propably did it yourself.</title>
	<author>SuperDre</author>
	<datestamp>1246633620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm pretty sure you just clicked 'yes' without reading the message when it was asked, I still have no problems on my system, still at Google..
Also if it really is the case, then you should also bitch at Google and Apple, they do exactly the same thing..

people these days just don't really read what they are 'yessing' to and blame the system..</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure you just clicked 'yes ' without reading the message when it was asked , I still have no problems on my system , still at Google. . Also if it really is the case , then you should also bitch at Google and Apple , they do exactly the same thing. . people these days just do n't really read what they are 'yessing ' to and blame the system. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure you just clicked 'yes' without reading the message when it was asked, I still have no problems on my system, still at Google..
Also if it really is the case, then you should also bitch at Google and Apple, they do exactly the same thing..

people these days just don't really read what they are 'yessing' to and blame the system..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28577831</id>
	<title>Re:This is relatively innocuous, compared to</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1246643520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uhm, you know IE7 does this too?  Chrome sends only slightly less info back, but it does it as well.</p><p>You act like this is new and scary, its neither, you just didn't bother to pay attention before today.</p><p>Google for the most part doesn't need to know all your URLs via your browser, you probably already tell them what they need to know in your searching, and microsoft isn't recording every URL you hit, its too much data to process on the scale they operate.</p><p>This isn't anything new, its not scary to anyone except you tinfoil hat guys.  Which, for the record, you might want to read a those popups (EULAs) that all the browsers have had for years and notice they all disclose clearly that this can happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhm , you know IE7 does this too ?
Chrome sends only slightly less info back , but it does it as well.You act like this is new and scary , its neither , you just did n't bother to pay attention before today.Google for the most part does n't need to know all your URLs via your browser , you probably already tell them what they need to know in your searching , and microsoft is n't recording every URL you hit , its too much data to process on the scale they operate.This is n't anything new , its not scary to anyone except you tinfoil hat guys .
Which , for the record , you might want to read a those popups ( EULAs ) that all the browsers have had for years and notice they all disclose clearly that this can happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhm, you know IE7 does this too?
Chrome sends only slightly less info back, but it does it as well.You act like this is new and scary, its neither, you just didn't bother to pay attention before today.Google for the most part doesn't need to know all your URLs via your browser, you probably already tell them what they need to know in your searching, and microsoft isn't recording every URL you hit, its too much data to process on the scale they operate.This isn't anything new, its not scary to anyone except you tinfoil hat guys.
Which, for the record, you might want to read a those popups (EULAs) that all the browsers have had for years and notice they all disclose clearly that this can happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567533</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568223</id>
	<title>Re:Best part about freedom!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246554600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>if you weren't such a fanboi fucktard you'd take the time to actually see what's going on here and realize that it's highly likely that microsoft did nothing at all in this user's case and he's simply doing the old knee jerk without knowing fuck all about windows and blaming microsoft for something that they played no part in.<br> <br>but i guess that takes the unthinkable to give big bad microsoft the benefit of the doubt over some slacker blogger. i know that's a lot to ask for.<br> <br>btw: linus torvalds just stole my lolly pop! bad linus! bad! now you're free to throw dungballs at him instead with zero proof of an inane claim.</htmltext>
<tokenext>if you were n't such a fanboi fucktard you 'd take the time to actually see what 's going on here and realize that it 's highly likely that microsoft did nothing at all in this user 's case and he 's simply doing the old knee jerk without knowing fuck all about windows and blaming microsoft for something that they played no part in .
but i guess that takes the unthinkable to give big bad microsoft the benefit of the doubt over some slacker blogger .
i know that 's a lot to ask for .
btw : linus torvalds just stole my lolly pop !
bad linus !
bad ! now you 're free to throw dungballs at him instead with zero proof of an inane claim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you weren't such a fanboi fucktard you'd take the time to actually see what's going on here and realize that it's highly likely that microsoft did nothing at all in this user's case and he's simply doing the old knee jerk without knowing fuck all about windows and blaming microsoft for something that they played no part in.
but i guess that takes the unthinkable to give big bad microsoft the benefit of the doubt over some slacker blogger.
i know that's a lot to ask for.
btw: linus torvalds just stole my lolly pop!
bad linus!
bad! now you're free to throw dungballs at him instead with zero proof of an inane claim.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28582563</id>
	<title>reasonable explanation.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246701840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>there is a browser setting, in both firefox and internet explorer, that allows the browser to get updates for search engines that are configured for use in the search box.</p><p>i think it was just a case of the browser fetching an update and bing.com replaced live.com.</p><p>no harm, no fowl, <b>just another uninformed person of the media ranting about something they know little or nothing about.</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there is a browser setting , in both firefox and internet explorer , that allows the browser to get updates for search engines that are configured for use in the search box.i think it was just a case of the browser fetching an update and bing.com replaced live.com.no harm , no fowl , just another uninformed person of the media ranting about something they know little or nothing about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there is a browser setting, in both firefox and internet explorer, that allows the browser to get updates for search engines that are configured for use in the search box.i think it was just a case of the browser fetching an update and bing.com replaced live.com.no harm, no fowl, just another uninformed person of the media ranting about something they know little or nothing about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568247</id>
	<title>Re:BING</title>
	<author>ignavus</author>
	<datestamp>1246554840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bing Is No Go</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing Is No Go</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing Is No Go</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566413</id>
	<title>Maybe a but more research next time /.  ?</title>
	<author>Liquidrage</author>
	<datestamp>1246539660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Well, I can't prove it based solely on the Event Viewer logs, but it's safe to say the search service is the prime suspect.</i>
<br> <br>
His proof is the event view showing the MS Search service "starting". You know, the one that's actually for searching your own computer. And the timing of it was right after start-up.
<br> <br>
I'm not saying it was, or it wasn't. But his proof is flimsy at best. His conclusion something I expect from the typical college age<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. reader that runs around wearing a T-shirt with a hidden message in binary on it, and refuses to play WoW on anything but a Mac so he can "stick it to the man".
<br> <br>
How about some actual proof of what happened. For all we know this tool downloaded something that asked him to change search engines and in his haste to get to porn (which btw Bing is king at), just clicked through without looking, and when he rebooted next time the change tried to happen.
Or it could be that the MS Search service tried to hide a change. But I don't buy it based on his SS of a service starting (wow) and his own "jump" to a conclusion. Especially since if it were true there should be reports of it all over.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I ca n't prove it based solely on the Event Viewer logs , but it 's safe to say the search service is the prime suspect .
His proof is the event view showing the MS Search service " starting " .
You know , the one that 's actually for searching your own computer .
And the timing of it was right after start-up .
I 'm not saying it was , or it was n't .
But his proof is flimsy at best .
His conclusion something I expect from the typical college age / .
reader that runs around wearing a T-shirt with a hidden message in binary on it , and refuses to play WoW on anything but a Mac so he can " stick it to the man " .
How about some actual proof of what happened .
For all we know this tool downloaded something that asked him to change search engines and in his haste to get to porn ( which btw Bing is king at ) , just clicked through without looking , and when he rebooted next time the change tried to happen .
Or it could be that the MS Search service tried to hide a change .
But I do n't buy it based on his SS of a service starting ( wow ) and his own " jump " to a conclusion .
Especially since if it were true there should be reports of it all over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I can't prove it based solely on the Event Viewer logs, but it's safe to say the search service is the prime suspect.
His proof is the event view showing the MS Search service "starting".
You know, the one that's actually for searching your own computer.
And the timing of it was right after start-up.
I'm not saying it was, or it wasn't.
But his proof is flimsy at best.
His conclusion something I expect from the typical college age /.
reader that runs around wearing a T-shirt with a hidden message in binary on it, and refuses to play WoW on anything but a Mac so he can "stick it to the man".
How about some actual proof of what happened.
For all we know this tool downloaded something that asked him to change search engines and in his haste to get to porn (which btw Bing is king at), just clicked through without looking, and when he rebooted next time the change tried to happen.
Or it could be that the MS Search service tried to hide a change.
But I don't buy it based on his SS of a service starting (wow) and his own "jump" to a conclusion.
Especially since if it were true there should be reports of it all over.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569009</id>
	<title>Re:Once more with feeling</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246651440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I love how microsoft is penalized for all the stuff that apple is doing now in there OS. I love how the quote above says "tried to change". Hell safari for window tried to change mine search engine. Hell all apple software tries to install new software software that you don't want anytime you install itunes or safari, it trys to force to install other stuff. But of course apple does not dominate all computers yet so there are not called on it. But when apple takes over where microsoft leaves off ( and yes they will fall) apple will be even worse.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I love how microsoft is penalized for all the stuff that apple is doing now in there OS .
I love how the quote above says " tried to change " .
Hell safari for window tried to change mine search engine .
Hell all apple software tries to install new software software that you do n't want anytime you install itunes or safari , it trys to force to install other stuff .
But of course apple does not dominate all computers yet so there are not called on it .
But when apple takes over where microsoft leaves off ( and yes they will fall ) apple will be even worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I love how microsoft is penalized for all the stuff that apple is doing now in there OS.
I love how the quote above says "tried to change".
Hell safari for window tried to change mine search engine.
Hell all apple software tries to install new software software that you don't want anytime you install itunes or safari, it trys to force to install other stuff.
But of course apple does not dominate all computers yet so there are not called on it.
But when apple takes over where microsoft leaves off ( and yes they will fall) apple will be even worse.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566137</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567633</id>
	<title>Re:BING</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246549200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You, good sir, have just totally blown my mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You , good sir , have just totally blown my mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You, good sir, have just totally blown my mind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28570027</id>
	<title>Re:BING</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246622640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BING! We have a winner!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BING !
We have a winner !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BING!
We have a winner!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568533</id>
	<title>Re:Once more with feeling</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1246558500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure he DOES have malware on his system.  It's probably called "Windows".</p><p>You don't want to accept his word about what happened, cool.  Don't.  You won't believe me, either, I'm sure.  And, I'm damned sure not going to provide any proof to a man who doesn't want to believe.</p><p>But, my search engine has been changed by Microsoft products 5 time or more in the last two months.  When I install anything, I always look at the options lists, and I always uncheck Yahoo search, Microsoft search, and any others that are offered.  Even so, something sneaks in afterward, and tries to change my default from Google to Microsoft.</p><p>Yes, it pisses me off.  If I have to use Bing or MSN search, or any of the rest, I'll just not install messanger, or whatever else I thought I might want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure he DOES have malware on his system .
It 's probably called " Windows " .You do n't want to accept his word about what happened , cool .
Do n't. You wo n't believe me , either , I 'm sure .
And , I 'm damned sure not going to provide any proof to a man who does n't want to believe.But , my search engine has been changed by Microsoft products 5 time or more in the last two months .
When I install anything , I always look at the options lists , and I always uncheck Yahoo search , Microsoft search , and any others that are offered .
Even so , something sneaks in afterward , and tries to change my default from Google to Microsoft.Yes , it pisses me off .
If I have to use Bing or MSN search , or any of the rest , I 'll just not install messanger , or whatever else I thought I might want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure he DOES have malware on his system.
It's probably called "Windows".You don't want to accept his word about what happened, cool.
Don't.  You won't believe me, either, I'm sure.
And, I'm damned sure not going to provide any proof to a man who doesn't want to believe.But, my search engine has been changed by Microsoft products 5 time or more in the last two months.
When I install anything, I always look at the options lists, and I always uncheck Yahoo search, Microsoft search, and any others that are offered.
Even so, something sneaks in afterward, and tries to change my default from Google to Microsoft.Yes, it pisses me off.
If I have to use Bing or MSN search, or any of the rest, I'll just not install messanger, or whatever else I thought I might want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28571037</id>
	<title>Re:Once more with feeling</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246632180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course you can set a default browser in Safari... not sure why you would only want Google on the Mac.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course you can set a default browser in Safari... not sure why you would only want Google on the Mac .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course you can set a default browser in Safari... not sure why you would only want Google on the Mac.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566481</id>
	<title>Re:Want more ad money? Bash Microsoft !</title>
	<author>ArcCoyote</author>
	<datestamp>1246540020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You sir, are dead on.</p><p>The only thing worse than no security is the insecurity of paranoia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You sir , are dead on.The only thing worse than no security is the insecurity of paranoia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You sir, are dead on.The only thing worse than no security is the insecurity of paranoia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28572997</id>
	<title>Re:Parent does have a point... proof?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246643880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Along these lines, what I see, is that if a Windows installation is "left alone" and all the applications are left to their own "happiness" with Microsoft applications and systems controlling the defaults and holding the users hand thru the functions and features that the computer possesses, then very little in-depth knowledge about the computer system is needed for it to "just work" and maintain a reasonable amount of stability. However, if a Windows installation is customized at all, say a different browser default or a non-MS toolbar in the MS "happiness" of controlling the computer, then the user needs in-depth knowledge about the computer to maintain that customization where conflicts aren't automatically resolved and updates reconfigure any stability and customization that was so difficult to achieve. Even minor customizations (skins and themes aside).
<br> <br>
I'll add that I see the same thing on Macintosh systems, tho to a slightly lesser extent. Plus there are exceptions both ways in Windows depending on the application suite, where Adobe applications fight for that control and ease of use/customization like Windows/Macintosh fight for control all in the name of making it easy for the user, while other application quite easily customize and control without the need for in-depth knowledge of drivers and registries and whatnot.
<br> <br>
Still, it seems that any deviation from the OS design on how the machine is used tends to be an all or nothing game for the user, who may not want to know what a registry is simply to use a different search engine by default.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Along these lines , what I see , is that if a Windows installation is " left alone " and all the applications are left to their own " happiness " with Microsoft applications and systems controlling the defaults and holding the users hand thru the functions and features that the computer possesses , then very little in-depth knowledge about the computer system is needed for it to " just work " and maintain a reasonable amount of stability .
However , if a Windows installation is customized at all , say a different browser default or a non-MS toolbar in the MS " happiness " of controlling the computer , then the user needs in-depth knowledge about the computer to maintain that customization where conflicts are n't automatically resolved and updates reconfigure any stability and customization that was so difficult to achieve .
Even minor customizations ( skins and themes aside ) .
I 'll add that I see the same thing on Macintosh systems , tho to a slightly lesser extent .
Plus there are exceptions both ways in Windows depending on the application suite , where Adobe applications fight for that control and ease of use/customization like Windows/Macintosh fight for control all in the name of making it easy for the user , while other application quite easily customize and control without the need for in-depth knowledge of drivers and registries and whatnot .
Still , it seems that any deviation from the OS design on how the machine is used tends to be an all or nothing game for the user , who may not want to know what a registry is simply to use a different search engine by default .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Along these lines, what I see, is that if a Windows installation is "left alone" and all the applications are left to their own "happiness" with Microsoft applications and systems controlling the defaults and holding the users hand thru the functions and features that the computer possesses, then very little in-depth knowledge about the computer system is needed for it to "just work" and maintain a reasonable amount of stability.
However, if a Windows installation is customized at all, say a different browser default or a non-MS toolbar in the MS "happiness" of controlling the computer, then the user needs in-depth knowledge about the computer to maintain that customization where conflicts aren't automatically resolved and updates reconfigure any stability and customization that was so difficult to achieve.
Even minor customizations (skins and themes aside).
I'll add that I see the same thing on Macintosh systems, tho to a slightly lesser extent.
Plus there are exceptions both ways in Windows depending on the application suite, where Adobe applications fight for that control and ease of use/customization like Windows/Macintosh fight for control all in the name of making it easy for the user, while other application quite easily customize and control without the need for in-depth knowledge of drivers and registries and whatnot.
Still, it seems that any deviation from the OS design on how the machine is used tends to be an all or nothing game for the user, who may not want to know what a registry is simply to use a different search engine by default.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566465</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566809</id>
	<title>Unfortunately, you just have to expect this.</title>
	<author>buttfscking</author>
	<datestamp>1246542240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In all honesty, I don't forsee Microsoft ceasing this behavior anytime soon.  If you're using Windows, you might as well surrender to the notion that you WILL encounter these sorts of inconveniences on a frequent/semi-frequent basis.  I understand that it's an underhanded practice, but it's also just another unfortunate fact of life for those who use MS products.  If that includes you, you'll just have to get used to it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In all honesty , I do n't forsee Microsoft ceasing this behavior anytime soon .
If you 're using Windows , you might as well surrender to the notion that you WILL encounter these sorts of inconveniences on a frequent/semi-frequent basis .
I understand that it 's an underhanded practice , but it 's also just another unfortunate fact of life for those who use MS products .
If that includes you , you 'll just have to get used to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In all honesty, I don't forsee Microsoft ceasing this behavior anytime soon.
If you're using Windows, you might as well surrender to the notion that you WILL encounter these sorts of inconveniences on a frequent/semi-frequent basis.
I understand that it's an underhanded practice, but it's also just another unfortunate fact of life for those who use MS products.
If that includes you, you'll just have to get used to it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566207</id>
	<title>Google Owns Search</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246538520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>When the general public think about searching the Internet they think of Google, even the phrase 'Google it' is fairly common.
I wonder what the success rate is for this strategy?</htmltext>
<tokenext>When the general public think about searching the Internet they think of Google , even the phrase 'Google it ' is fairly common .
I wonder what the success rate is for this strategy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the general public think about searching the Internet they think of Google, even the phrase 'Google it' is fairly common.
I wonder what the success rate is for this strategy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569679</id>
	<title>Re:Want more ad money? Bash Microsoft !</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1246617360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What happened to the geeks to could reverse engineer executables and actually point to the specific CPU instruction that actually did it?</i></p><p>They still do that, but instead of publishing it, they send the outcome to people in free countries where you may actually point out the blunders of corporations without being slapped with a suit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What happened to the geeks to could reverse engineer executables and actually point to the specific CPU instruction that actually did it ? They still do that , but instead of publishing it , they send the outcome to people in free countries where you may actually point out the blunders of corporations without being slapped with a suit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happened to the geeks to could reverse engineer executables and actually point to the specific CPU instruction that actually did it?They still do that, but instead of publishing it, they send the outcome to people in free countries where you may actually point out the blunders of corporations without being slapped with a suit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28570721</id>
	<title>Redirect Bing to Google</title>
	<author>Nishi-no-wan</author>
	<datestamp>1246630020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've had msnbot rejected from my site for many years.  The just under a year ago I get a request from someone working for MSN Live Search asking to remove the block from robots.txt.  I said, "no" and gave her the short version of my falling out with Microsoft (just the 1995 to 1998 subset).</p><p>Then I started getting hits from Bing.  Their support site only mentioned msnbot gathering information, so how did my site get index?  Well, this had to stop.</p><p>So, I wrote a filter that would redirect anything with a REFERER from bing.com to google.com with the same search query.  After running for a few weeks now, I see that some IP addresses never return, but most come back from Google - often with more specific search queries than the first time.  I still haven't heard a word from the confused Bing users about it, though.  So I'm guessing that it works well for keeping the completely clueless out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've had msnbot rejected from my site for many years .
The just under a year ago I get a request from someone working for MSN Live Search asking to remove the block from robots.txt .
I said , " no " and gave her the short version of my falling out with Microsoft ( just the 1995 to 1998 subset ) .Then I started getting hits from Bing .
Their support site only mentioned msnbot gathering information , so how did my site get index ?
Well , this had to stop.So , I wrote a filter that would redirect anything with a REFERER from bing.com to google.com with the same search query .
After running for a few weeks now , I see that some IP addresses never return , but most come back from Google - often with more specific search queries than the first time .
I still have n't heard a word from the confused Bing users about it , though .
So I 'm guessing that it works well for keeping the completely clueless out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've had msnbot rejected from my site for many years.
The just under a year ago I get a request from someone working for MSN Live Search asking to remove the block from robots.txt.
I said, "no" and gave her the short version of my falling out with Microsoft (just the 1995 to 1998 subset).Then I started getting hits from Bing.
Their support site only mentioned msnbot gathering information, so how did my site get index?
Well, this had to stop.So, I wrote a filter that would redirect anything with a REFERER from bing.com to google.com with the same search query.
After running for a few weeks now, I see that some IP addresses never return, but most come back from Google - often with more specific search queries than the first time.
I still haven't heard a word from the confused Bing users about it, though.
So I'm guessing that it works well for keeping the completely clueless out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568791</id>
	<title>Run your own test</title>
	<author>Sir Holo</author>
	<datestamp>1246561800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Search something like "bill gates evil" in google and bing.  Compare.  Discuss.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Search something like " bill gates evil " in google and bing .
Compare. Discuss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Search something like "bill gates evil" in google and bing.
Compare.  Discuss.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567041</id>
	<title>I blame</title>
	<author>iamthetru7h</author>
	<datestamp>1246543980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ned Ryerson.

BING!

right again!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ned Ryerson .
BING ! right again !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ned Ryerson.
BING!

right again!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569209</id>
	<title>Re:Once more with feeling</title>
	<author>root\_42</author>
	<datestamp>1246654320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just install Glims (http://www.machangout.com/) and be happy!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just install Glims ( http : //www.machangout.com/ ) and be happy !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just install Glims (http://www.machangout.com/) and be happy!
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566557</id>
	<title>Re:Once more with feeling</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246540500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you actualy read the article, he admits he doesnt know what was trying to change the default search provider, or what it was being set to. All he knows is his google toolbar said a change was being made.</p><p>Any atribution of this action to Microsoft, or that the provider was being set to Bing are suppositions - there is no evidence of that provided.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you actualy read the article , he admits he doesnt know what was trying to change the default search provider , or what it was being set to .
All he knows is his google toolbar said a change was being made.Any atribution of this action to Microsoft , or that the provider was being set to Bing are suppositions - there is no evidence of that provided .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you actualy read the article, he admits he doesnt know what was trying to change the default search provider, or what it was being set to.
All he knows is his google toolbar said a change was being made.Any atribution of this action to Microsoft, or that the provider was being set to Bing are suppositions - there is no evidence of that provided.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566137</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567845</id>
	<title>Re:BING</title>
	<author>dudpixel</author>
	<datestamp>1246551300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Bing Is Not Google</p><p>recursive</p></div><p>I would suggest you are actually 100\% correct.  Rather than it being a joke at all.</p><p>For a recursive acronym, the first letter could be anything they wanted.  BUT if it is before G in the alphabet, then their search engine would show up before google in any alphabetically sorted list.  The only other options they had would've been:<br>aing (hard to say)<br>cing (ambigious - is it sing or king?)<br>ding (hmmm)<br>eing (silly)<br>or<br>fing (sounds like "thing").</p><p>I'd have to argue that Microsoft did actually name it BING after the recursive acronym mentioned above (Bing Is Not Google).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing Is Not GooglerecursiveI would suggest you are actually 100 \ % correct .
Rather than it being a joke at all.For a recursive acronym , the first letter could be anything they wanted .
BUT if it is before G in the alphabet , then their search engine would show up before google in any alphabetically sorted list .
The only other options they had would 've been : aing ( hard to say ) cing ( ambigious - is it sing or king ?
) ding ( hmmm ) eing ( silly ) orfing ( sounds like " thing " ) .I 'd have to argue that Microsoft did actually name it BING after the recursive acronym mentioned above ( Bing Is Not Google ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing Is Not GooglerecursiveI would suggest you are actually 100\% correct.
Rather than it being a joke at all.For a recursive acronym, the first letter could be anything they wanted.
BUT if it is before G in the alphabet, then their search engine would show up before google in any alphabetically sorted list.
The only other options they had would've been:aing (hard to say)cing (ambigious - is it sing or king?
)ding (hmmm)eing (silly)orfing (sounds like "thing").I'd have to argue that Microsoft did actually name it BING after the recursive acronym mentioned above (Bing Is Not Google).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568127</id>
	<title>Re:Best part about freedom!!</title>
	<author>mSparks43</author>
	<datestamp>1246553700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>You can choose a different OS</i> </p><p>That seems to imply the people who in general use an OS are one in the same as those who choose and install the OS.</p><p>Given the number of times my Vista Laptop used to furnish me with the lovely error message of "this cannot be done, please contact your technical administrator for assistance" before I upgraded it to Fedora, it's fairly obvious even M$ knows this isn't true. Quite how that passed you by is something of a mystery.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can choose a different OS That seems to imply the people who in general use an OS are one in the same as those who choose and install the OS.Given the number of times my Vista Laptop used to furnish me with the lovely error message of " this can not be done , please contact your technical administrator for assistance " before I upgraded it to Fedora , it 's fairly obvious even M $ knows this is n't true .
Quite how that passed you by is something of a mystery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> You can choose a different OS That seems to imply the people who in general use an OS are one in the same as those who choose and install the OS.Given the number of times my Vista Laptop used to furnish me with the lovely error message of "this cannot be done, please contact your technical administrator for assistance" before I upgraded it to Fedora, it's fairly obvious even M$ knows this isn't true.
Quite how that passed you by is something of a mystery.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569365</id>
	<title>Re:Once more with feeling</title>
	<author>bemymonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1246613580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also, although one can infer this from the "How to change the default search engine in Firefox" part, nowhere does he actually state that the Firefox search was changed - or did I miss something?</p><p>I mean, if it's just IE, who cares? It's MS's browser, let'm do what they want with it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , although one can infer this from the " How to change the default search engine in Firefox " part , nowhere does he actually state that the Firefox search was changed - or did I miss something ? I mean , if it 's just IE , who cares ?
It 's MS 's browser , let 'm do what they want with it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, although one can infer this from the "How to change the default search engine in Firefox" part, nowhere does he actually state that the Firefox search was changed - or did I miss something?I mean, if it's just IE, who cares?
It's MS's browser, let'm do what they want with it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567207</id>
	<title>Re:BING</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246545240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It comes down to search and result relevennce:<br>Top Results "Search Engines" on Bing, Yahoo and Google:</p><p>Bing:<br>Web search engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<br>List of search engines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<br>Search Engines - refdesk.com<br>Search Engine Optimization (SEO) Marketing Firm &amp; Placement Company<br>Search Engines Forum</p><p>Yahoo:<br>Dogpile Web Search<br>Web search engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<br>Metasearch Search Engine - Search.com<br>AltaVista<br>Web search engines</p><p>Google:<br>News results for search engines (http://news.google.co.nz/news)<br>Dogpile Web Search<br>Web search engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<br>Recommended Search Engines<br>List of search engines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p><p>So apart from Googles news service, all three think Wikipedia and Dogpile is a more relevant search engine than any one of their own.</p><p>Now I happen to agree, I'm going to see if I can write myself a mashup page to supply an aggregated search response, with no flash or images displayed.</p><p>Now if I do it as a plug-in I could also interrogate Beagle, or Spotlight or MS desktop search too 8)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It comes down to search and result relevennce : Top Results " Search Engines " on Bing , Yahoo and Google : Bing : Web search engine - Wikipedia , the free encyclopediaList of search engines - Wikipedia , the free encyclopediaSearch Engines - refdesk.comSearch Engine Optimization ( SEO ) Marketing Firm &amp; Placement CompanySearch Engines ForumYahoo : Dogpile Web SearchWeb search engine - Wikipedia , the free encyclopediaMetasearch Search Engine - Search.comAltaVistaWeb search enginesGoogle : News results for search engines ( http : //news.google.co.nz/news ) Dogpile Web SearchWeb search engine - Wikipedia , the free encyclopediaRecommended Search EnginesList of search engines - Wikipedia , the free encyclopediaSo apart from Googles news service , all three think Wikipedia and Dogpile is a more relevant search engine than any one of their own.Now I happen to agree , I 'm going to see if I can write myself a mashup page to supply an aggregated search response , with no flash or images displayed.Now if I do it as a plug-in I could also interrogate Beagle , or Spotlight or MS desktop search too 8 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It comes down to search and result relevennce:Top Results "Search Engines" on Bing, Yahoo and Google:Bing:Web search engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaList of search engines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaSearch Engines - refdesk.comSearch Engine Optimization (SEO) Marketing Firm &amp; Placement CompanySearch Engines ForumYahoo:Dogpile Web SearchWeb search engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaMetasearch Search Engine - Search.comAltaVistaWeb search enginesGoogle:News results for search engines (http://news.google.co.nz/news)Dogpile Web SearchWeb search engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaRecommended Search EnginesList of search engines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaSo apart from Googles news service, all three think Wikipedia and Dogpile is a more relevant search engine than any one of their own.Now I happen to agree, I'm going to see if I can write myself a mashup page to supply an aggregated search response, with no flash or images displayed.Now if I do it as a plug-in I could also interrogate Beagle, or Spotlight or MS desktop search too 8)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28577837</id>
	<title>Re:Hope they...</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1246643640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Smoke too much crack today or something?</p><p>Criminal?  Are you fucking serious?  What law is broken here?</p><p>No one is going to get sued for this, this isn't like what Sony did, and by the way, what fine did Sony get?  Show me exactly how they got 'spanked'?</p><p>How many more years of school do you have before you get out and join the real world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Smoke too much crack today or something ? Criminal ?
Are you fucking serious ?
What law is broken here ? No one is going to get sued for this , this is n't like what Sony did , and by the way , what fine did Sony get ?
Show me exactly how they got 'spanked ' ? How many more years of school do you have before you get out and join the real world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Smoke too much crack today or something?Criminal?
Are you fucking serious?
What law is broken here?No one is going to get sued for this, this isn't like what Sony did, and by the way, what fine did Sony get?
Show me exactly how they got 'spanked'?How many more years of school do you have before you get out and join the real world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28570535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568517</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe a but more research next time /. ?</title>
	<author>Retron</author>
	<datestamp>1246558260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't bother with any of those silly toolbars.
<br>
Google is (and has been) the default in Firefox for me, no attempts made by MS to change it either on this PC or the others I use during the course of an average week. That's on a mixture of XP and 7 as well, FWIW.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't bother with any of those silly toolbars .
Google is ( and has been ) the default in Firefox for me , no attempts made by MS to change it either on this PC or the others I use during the course of an average week .
That 's on a mixture of XP and 7 as well , FWIW .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't bother with any of those silly toolbars.
Google is (and has been) the default in Firefox for me, no attempts made by MS to change it either on this PC or the others I use during the course of an average week.
That's on a mixture of XP and 7 as well, FWIW.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28570515</id>
	<title>Re:Google does it too</title>
	<author>Joseph Lam</author>
	<datestamp>1246628460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Picasa doesn't have a monopoly like Windows</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Picasa does n't have a monopoly like Windows</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Picasa doesn't have a monopoly like Windows</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567511</id>
	<title>Well, Lets See...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246547820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What a surprise, coming from a company that has made it's living STEALING, yes STEALING, money from the people of the world. If they we're in any other business they would be forced to sell a product that works. They would be forced to fix the product already out instead of releasing a new version. The people have spoken, and they are Dumbshits that deserve to have money taken from them I guess. If Microsoft was still on windows 2000, just bug-fixing, they would probably now be at a profit statement more in line with every other company in existence because of the 9 years of Zero Income and we would have a nice, solid, computing platform that is robust enough to do anything with exception handling for EVERY SITUATION and configuration.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What a surprise , coming from a company that has made it 's living STEALING , yes STEALING , money from the people of the world .
If they we 're in any other business they would be forced to sell a product that works .
They would be forced to fix the product already out instead of releasing a new version .
The people have spoken , and they are Dumbshits that deserve to have money taken from them I guess .
If Microsoft was still on windows 2000 , just bug-fixing , they would probably now be at a profit statement more in line with every other company in existence because of the 9 years of Zero Income and we would have a nice , solid , computing platform that is robust enough to do anything with exception handling for EVERY SITUATION and configuration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a surprise, coming from a company that has made it's living STEALING, yes STEALING, money from the people of the world.
If they we're in any other business they would be forced to sell a product that works.
They would be forced to fix the product already out instead of releasing a new version.
The people have spoken, and they are Dumbshits that deserve to have money taken from them I guess.
If Microsoft was still on windows 2000, just bug-fixing, they would probably now be at a profit statement more in line with every other company in existence because of the 9 years of Zero Income and we would have a nice, solid, computing platform that is robust enough to do anything with exception handling for EVERY SITUATION and configuration.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566477</id>
	<title>There's no proof...</title>
	<author>Ceseuron</author>
	<datestamp>1246540020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>  <p>I know I'll probably get modded as a troll for this, but the article doesn't offer any actual evidence that Microsoft is changing search engine preferences without users knowing it. Even the author himself doesn't say that there's conclusive evidence. He writes in his article:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"Vista's Event Viewer identified the Windows Search Service as the likely source of the attempt to change my search default."</p></div><p>and</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"Well, I can't prove it based solely on the Event Viewer logs, but it's safe to say the search service is the prime suspect."</p></div><p>The author of the article doesn't bother to conduct any meaningful research into the purpose of the Windows Search service <a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa965362(VS.85).aspx" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">or what it actually does</a> [microsoft.com]. Now I'm all for throwing the punches at Microsoft for the stupid crap they pull and I wouldn't put it past them to do something shady and underhanded like this. However, this article is little more than the rambling conjecture of a computer illiterate who can't tell the difference between a system service and an online search engine. If you're going to post articles about the devious, dirty deeds of Microsoft at least have the common sense to post articles with at least some level of truth behind them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know I 'll probably get modded as a troll for this , but the article does n't offer any actual evidence that Microsoft is changing search engine preferences without users knowing it .
Even the author himself does n't say that there 's conclusive evidence .
He writes in his article : " Vista 's Event Viewer identified the Windows Search Service as the likely source of the attempt to change my search default .
" and " Well , I ca n't prove it based solely on the Event Viewer logs , but it 's safe to say the search service is the prime suspect .
" The author of the article does n't bother to conduct any meaningful research into the purpose of the Windows Search service or what it actually does [ microsoft.com ] .
Now I 'm all for throwing the punches at Microsoft for the stupid crap they pull and I would n't put it past them to do something shady and underhanded like this .
However , this article is little more than the rambling conjecture of a computer illiterate who ca n't tell the difference between a system service and an online search engine .
If you 're going to post articles about the devious , dirty deeds of Microsoft at least have the common sense to post articles with at least some level of truth behind them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  I know I'll probably get modded as a troll for this, but the article doesn't offer any actual evidence that Microsoft is changing search engine preferences without users knowing it.
Even the author himself doesn't say that there's conclusive evidence.
He writes in his article:"Vista's Event Viewer identified the Windows Search Service as the likely source of the attempt to change my search default.
"and"Well, I can't prove it based solely on the Event Viewer logs, but it's safe to say the search service is the prime suspect.
"The author of the article doesn't bother to conduct any meaningful research into the purpose of the Windows Search service or what it actually does [microsoft.com].
Now I'm all for throwing the punches at Microsoft for the stupid crap they pull and I wouldn't put it past them to do something shady and underhanded like this.
However, this article is little more than the rambling conjecture of a computer illiterate who can't tell the difference between a system service and an online search engine.
If you're going to post articles about the devious, dirty deeds of Microsoft at least have the common sense to post articles with at least some level of truth behind them.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566303</id>
	<title>Re:Once more with feeling</title>
	<author>Brian Gordon</author>
	<datestamp>1246539060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's already hard enough to switch to Google. Why is the most popular search engine <a href="http://www.ieaddons.com/en/searchproviders/" title="ieaddons.com" rel="nofollow">at the bottom of the list</a> [ieaddons.com]? Could it be that it's weirdly labelled "Google Search Suggestions" unlike the very clear "Bing Search"? I thought that addon was just the suggestions the first time I saw it. If Google had started at the top then it would easily float there. Microsoft probably buried it so the Most Viewed providers would get viewed more and stay at the top.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's already hard enough to switch to Google .
Why is the most popular search engine at the bottom of the list [ ieaddons.com ] ?
Could it be that it 's weirdly labelled " Google Search Suggestions " unlike the very clear " Bing Search " ?
I thought that addon was just the suggestions the first time I saw it .
If Google had started at the top then it would easily float there .
Microsoft probably buried it so the Most Viewed providers would get viewed more and stay at the top .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's already hard enough to switch to Google.
Why is the most popular search engine at the bottom of the list [ieaddons.com]?
Could it be that it's weirdly labelled "Google Search Suggestions" unlike the very clear "Bing Search"?
I thought that addon was just the suggestions the first time I saw it.
If Google had started at the top then it would easily float there.
Microsoft probably buried it so the Most Viewed providers would get viewed more and stay at the top.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566137</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568709</id>
	<title>Hogwash</title>
	<author>mozzis</author>
	<datestamp>1246560720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Both of the referenced articles are utter nonsense.
The purported change of search engine pointed at the Windows file indexer, not the Internet search. The most likely explanation by far is that the Google toolbar mis-fired its warning on initialization after an upgrade. The facts and illustrations in the article support this.
As for the "previous time" the company has beeb "caught", this has already been shown to be <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/05/microsoft\_update\_quietly\_insta.html/" title="washingtonpost.com" rel="nofollow">http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/05/microsoft\_update\_quietly\_insta.html/</a> [washingtonpost.com] (read the comments) completely false as well.
I am really sick of this site's propensity for publishing any ridiculous attack on Microsoft as if it were gospel. None of the headline authors seem to have any critical thinking skills whatever. I have enough morons in my life without having to wade through them for tech news.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Both of the referenced articles are utter nonsense .
The purported change of search engine pointed at the Windows file indexer , not the Internet search .
The most likely explanation by far is that the Google toolbar mis-fired its warning on initialization after an upgrade .
The facts and illustrations in the article support this .
As for the " previous time " the company has beeb " caught " , this has already been shown to be http : //voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/05/microsoft \ _update \ _quietly \ _insta.html/ [ washingtonpost.com ] ( read the comments ) completely false as well .
I am really sick of this site 's propensity for publishing any ridiculous attack on Microsoft as if it were gospel .
None of the headline authors seem to have any critical thinking skills whatever .
I have enough morons in my life without having to wade through them for tech news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both of the referenced articles are utter nonsense.
The purported change of search engine pointed at the Windows file indexer, not the Internet search.
The most likely explanation by far is that the Google toolbar mis-fired its warning on initialization after an upgrade.
The facts and illustrations in the article support this.
As for the "previous time" the company has beeb "caught", this has already been shown to be http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/05/microsoft\_update\_quietly\_insta.html/ [washingtonpost.com] (read the comments) completely false as well.
I am really sick of this site's propensity for publishing any ridiculous attack on Microsoft as if it were gospel.
None of the headline authors seem to have any critical thinking skills whatever.
I have enough morons in my life without having to wade through them for tech news.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28570019</id>
	<title>Re:Google Owns Search</title>
	<author>marafa</author>
	<datestamp>1246622460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you are correct the phrase "google it" has forced upon us a new word into our dictionary. however, the word bing is not new. microsoft is NOT forcing us to use something new eg.<br>"oh! just bing it in the trash"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you are correct the phrase " google it " has forced upon us a new word into our dictionary .
however , the word bing is not new .
microsoft is NOT forcing us to use something new eg. " oh !
just bing it in the trash "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you are correct the phrase "google it" has forced upon us a new word into our dictionary.
however, the word bing is not new.
microsoft is NOT forcing us to use something new eg."oh!
just bing it in the trash"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569295</id>
	<title>Re:Once more with feeling</title>
	<author>Exception Duck</author>
	<datestamp>1246612200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(B)ing (I)s (N)ot (G)ood.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( B ) ing ( I ) s ( N ) ot ( G ) ood .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(B)ing (I)s (N)ot (G)ood.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566137</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28570347</id>
	<title>Almost as devious as</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246627080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567717</id>
	<title>Re:Once more with feeling</title>
	<author>Marcos Eliziario</author>
	<datestamp>1246549920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If he is using windows, and doesn't know what the Search Service is, I am pretty sure he is the kind of user who would get infected by malware.<br>He shouldn't be using windows. He should use linux, it's safer for him.<br>Thinking better.... No. He shouldn't use a computer at all. He wouldn't know also what apt-get upgrade is supposed to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If he is using windows , and does n't know what the Search Service is , I am pretty sure he is the kind of user who would get infected by malware.He should n't be using windows .
He should use linux , it 's safer for him.Thinking better.... No. He should n't use a computer at all .
He would n't know also what apt-get upgrade is supposed to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If he is using windows, and doesn't know what the Search Service is, I am pretty sure he is the kind of user who would get infected by malware.He shouldn't be using windows.
He should use linux, it's safer for him.Thinking better.... No. He shouldn't use a computer at all.
He wouldn't know also what apt-get upgrade is supposed to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567683</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>EvanED</author>
	<datestamp>1246549620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Why does google now require a phone number when applying for Gmail?!</i></p><p>One of my friends has Grand Central/Google Voice; I stopped calling that number and just using the direct one (slightly to his chagrin, but not much), in large part because I decided I didn't want Google to know every time I talked to him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does google now require a phone number when applying for Gmail ?
! One of my friends has Grand Central/Google Voice ; I stopped calling that number and just using the direct one ( slightly to his chagrin , but not much ) , in large part because I decided I did n't want Google to know every time I talked to him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does google now require a phone number when applying for Gmail?
!One of my friends has Grand Central/Google Voice; I stopped calling that number and just using the direct one (slightly to his chagrin, but not much), in large part because I decided I didn't want Google to know every time I talked to him.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567005</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28571589</id>
	<title>Re:Once more with feeling</title>
	<author>fwr</author>
	<datestamp>1246635600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So malware changes the search engine option to Bing, which just came out, and is a Microsoft product / service.  Right.  That is so logical.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So malware changes the search engine option to Bing , which just came out , and is a Microsoft product / service .
Right. That is so logical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So malware changes the search engine option to Bing, which just came out, and is a Microsoft product / service.
Right.  That is so logical.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567295</id>
	<title>Re:Once more with feeling</title>
	<author>ScrewMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1246545660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's already hard enough to switch to Google.</p></div><p>Nah. It's pretty damn <a href="http://www.mozilla.com/" title="mozilla.com">painless</a> [mozilla.com] actually.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's already hard enough to switch to Google.Nah .
It 's pretty damn painless [ mozilla.com ] actually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's already hard enough to switch to Google.Nah.
It's pretty damn painless [mozilla.com] actually.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566303</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28572129</id>
	<title>MS supports Firefox now?</title>
	<author>HalAtWork</author>
	<datestamp>1246638540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>On Internet Explorer, their excuse is that they're starting you with a clean slate configuration, even though their configuration files should be able to be interpreted and imported since MS designed them.  But with Firefox?  What's their excuse for changing a 3rd party application's configuration?  &lt;sarcasm&gt;Maybe this is a sign that MS is directly supporting Firefox under Windows now?&lt;/sarcasm&gt;</htmltext>
<tokenext>On Internet Explorer , their excuse is that they 're starting you with a clean slate configuration , even though their configuration files should be able to be interpreted and imported since MS designed them .
But with Firefox ?
What 's their excuse for changing a 3rd party application 's configuration ?
Maybe this is a sign that MS is directly supporting Firefox under Windows now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On Internet Explorer, their excuse is that they're starting you with a clean slate configuration, even though their configuration files should be able to be interpreted and imported since MS designed them.
But with Firefox?
What's their excuse for changing a 3rd party application's configuration?
Maybe this is a sign that MS is directly supporting Firefox under Windows now?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566137</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566843</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft still doesn't get it and never will</title>
	<author>Liquidrage</author>
	<datestamp>1246542600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you're looking for video's I can't imagine using any other search engine then Bing right now. They're better at searching youtube then youtube is, and in a much friendlier manner.
<br> <br>
For stuff other then videos, yeah, Google is king and will be for a loooong time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're looking for video 's I ca n't imagine using any other search engine then Bing right now .
They 're better at searching youtube then youtube is , and in a much friendlier manner .
For stuff other then videos , yeah , Google is king and will be for a loooong time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're looking for video's I can't imagine using any other search engine then Bing right now.
They're better at searching youtube then youtube is, and in a much friendlier manner.
For stuff other then videos, yeah, Google is king and will be for a loooong time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566233</id>
	<title>Re:BING</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246538580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bing Is Not Google</p><p>recursive</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing Is Not Googlerecursive</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing Is Not Googlerecursive</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566539</id>
	<title>Re:Google Owns Search</title>
	<author>elashish14</author>
	<datestamp>1246540380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, but a lot of the time, I find myself telling people to bing shit too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but a lot of the time , I find myself telling people to bing shit too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but a lot of the time, I find myself telling people to bing shit too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566867</id>
	<title>Re:Want more ad money? Bash Microsoft !</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246542780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What happened to the geeks to could reverse engineer executables and actually point to the specific CPU instruction that actually did it?</i></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; That sort of died out when video drivers hit 80MB, printer drivers hit 40MB, OSes hit 2+GB and god knows how many MB of bloated code are needed to switch a default search engine. I'd say at least 15MB. No one can be bothered to sift through all that shite anymore. It was easy when programs were 16k.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What happened to the geeks to could reverse engineer executables and actually point to the specific CPU instruction that actually did it ?
      That sort of died out when video drivers hit 80MB , printer drivers hit 40MB , OSes hit 2 + GB and god knows how many MB of bloated code are needed to switch a default search engine .
I 'd say at least 15MB .
No one can be bothered to sift through all that shite anymore .
It was easy when programs were 16k .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happened to the geeks to could reverse engineer executables and actually point to the specific CPU instruction that actually did it?
      That sort of died out when video drivers hit 80MB, printer drivers hit 40MB, OSes hit 2+GB and god knows how many MB of bloated code are needed to switch a default search engine.
I'd say at least 15MB.
No one can be bothered to sift through all that shite anymore.
It was easy when programs were 16k.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569051</id>
	<title>They're changing the default software in Linux too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246652100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mono. Need I say more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mono .
Need I say more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mono.
Need I say more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566709</id>
	<title>Re:Parent does have a point... proof?</title>
	<author>Liquidrage</author>
	<datestamp>1246541520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't see any proof that "Bing" was the search engine it tried to change it to. Just his "conclusion" it was Bing.
<br> <br>
Since I assume he didn't allow it to change it, he probably never did a search with the default changed. His SS's certainly don't show that it was Bing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see any proof that " Bing " was the search engine it tried to change it to .
Just his " conclusion " it was Bing .
Since I assume he did n't allow it to change it , he probably never did a search with the default changed .
His SS 's certainly do n't show that it was Bing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see any proof that "Bing" was the search engine it tried to change it to.
Just his "conclusion" it was Bing.
Since I assume he didn't allow it to change it, he probably never did a search with the default changed.
His SS's certainly don't show that it was Bing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566465</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28571943</id>
	<title>Re:Want more ad money? Bash Microsoft !</title>
	<author>flameproof</author>
	<datestamp>1246637460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You answered your own question: convenience of better operating systems ('nix/bsd [hurd if you're a wannabe FOSS Che Guevara-geek] etc) keeps us from having to "reverse engineer" anything.  You seem to be missing the point of open source: the code is there so YOU can change it (and share your changes if they amount to anything productive - again YOU not US or WE,) in an OPEN, daylight environment of collaboration as opposed to hacking away in the wee hours of the night so you can share you latest "patch" with a small circle of friends you wish to impress.<br> <br>

The "FUD" surrounding DRM is DRM itself.  I do not need the contents of my computer managed any more than I need the contents of the notebooks I carry managed.  If I decide to write down the words to "Strawberry Fields Forever" in my journal or notebook - or on the freakin' walls of my apartment - I should be able to do so without the interference of anyone questioning either why I did it or what it's use is or whether or not Paul McCartney should get a stipend for my use of his words on my walls.  Piracy - the act of distributing copies of artistic enterprise owned by someone to others who have no legal right to it - will never be thwarted by DRM, which makes DRM a nuisance to the average user who wishes to make use of his legally licensed property.<br> <br>

One last thing: I'm assuming your a M$ user and if so, you have ever right to your preference.  I have 5 different hologrammed cd copies of Windows all sitting tightly in their cases which I have bought (sorry - licensed) over the years going completely to waste.  I don't use M$ products and I won't not because I don't like them, but because M$ makes using their products a never-ending game of paying M$ (or one of it's licensees) in order to <i> <b>protect and help themselves</b> </i> as opposed to protecting and helping me.  Linux is the ultimate "opt out".</htmltext>
<tokenext>You answered your own question : convenience of better operating systems ( 'nix/bsd [ hurd if you 're a wannabe FOSS Che Guevara-geek ] etc ) keeps us from having to " reverse engineer " anything .
You seem to be missing the point of open source : the code is there so YOU can change it ( and share your changes if they amount to anything productive - again YOU not US or WE , ) in an OPEN , daylight environment of collaboration as opposed to hacking away in the wee hours of the night so you can share you latest " patch " with a small circle of friends you wish to impress .
The " FUD " surrounding DRM is DRM itself .
I do not need the contents of my computer managed any more than I need the contents of the notebooks I carry managed .
If I decide to write down the words to " Strawberry Fields Forever " in my journal or notebook - or on the freakin ' walls of my apartment - I should be able to do so without the interference of anyone questioning either why I did it or what it 's use is or whether or not Paul McCartney should get a stipend for my use of his words on my walls .
Piracy - the act of distributing copies of artistic enterprise owned by someone to others who have no legal right to it - will never be thwarted by DRM , which makes DRM a nuisance to the average user who wishes to make use of his legally licensed property .
One last thing : I 'm assuming your a M $ user and if so , you have ever right to your preference .
I have 5 different hologrammed cd copies of Windows all sitting tightly in their cases which I have bought ( sorry - licensed ) over the years going completely to waste .
I do n't use M $ products and I wo n't not because I do n't like them , but because M $ makes using their products a never-ending game of paying M $ ( or one of it 's licensees ) in order to protect and help themselves as opposed to protecting and helping me .
Linux is the ultimate " opt out " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You answered your own question: convenience of better operating systems ('nix/bsd [hurd if you're a wannabe FOSS Che Guevara-geek] etc) keeps us from having to "reverse engineer" anything.
You seem to be missing the point of open source: the code is there so YOU can change it (and share your changes if they amount to anything productive - again YOU not US or WE,) in an OPEN, daylight environment of collaboration as opposed to hacking away in the wee hours of the night so you can share you latest "patch" with a small circle of friends you wish to impress.
The "FUD" surrounding DRM is DRM itself.
I do not need the contents of my computer managed any more than I need the contents of the notebooks I carry managed.
If I decide to write down the words to "Strawberry Fields Forever" in my journal or notebook - or on the freakin' walls of my apartment - I should be able to do so without the interference of anyone questioning either why I did it or what it's use is or whether or not Paul McCartney should get a stipend for my use of his words on my walls.
Piracy - the act of distributing copies of artistic enterprise owned by someone to others who have no legal right to it - will never be thwarted by DRM, which makes DRM a nuisance to the average user who wishes to make use of his legally licensed property.
One last thing: I'm assuming your a M$ user and if so, you have ever right to your preference.
I have 5 different hologrammed cd copies of Windows all sitting tightly in their cases which I have bought (sorry - licensed) over the years going completely to waste.
I don't use M$ products and I won't not because I don't like them, but because M$ makes using their products a never-ending game of paying M$ (or one of it's licensees) in order to  protect and help themselves  as opposed to protecting and helping me.
Linux is the ultimate "opt out".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568253</id>
	<title>Re:Once more with feeling</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246554900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the stuff about pro-Microsoft people wanting to bury articles is very true. Thanks for the confirmation.</p><p>You said it can't be proven, so leave it at that. People will read your comments like I did and weigh them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the stuff about pro-Microsoft people wanting to bury articles is very true .
Thanks for the confirmation.You said it ca n't be proven , so leave it at that .
People will read your comments like I did and weigh them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the stuff about pro-Microsoft people wanting to bury articles is very true.
Thanks for the confirmation.You said it can't be proven, so leave it at that.
People will read your comments like I did and weigh them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567057</id>
	<title>Just as we were discussing google 'antitrust' case</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1246544100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and some morons were saying 'too much fuss was made about microsoft'. now lets see them say the same thing about this one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and some morons were saying 'too much fuss was made about microsoft' .
now lets see them say the same thing about this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and some morons were saying 'too much fuss was made about microsoft'.
now lets see them say the same thing about this one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569161</id>
	<title>Re:Once more with feeling</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246653780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Safari does allow other search engines via plugins like every other browser.  A plugin called Inquisitor has Google, Yahoo, Amazon, and Flickr.  More can be added if you know how.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Safari does allow other search engines via plugins like every other browser .
A plugin called Inquisitor has Google , Yahoo , Amazon , and Flickr .
More can be added if you know how .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Safari does allow other search engines via plugins like every other browser.
A plugin called Inquisitor has Google, Yahoo, Amazon, and Flickr.
More can be added if you know how.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568263</id>
	<title>Re:it is all happening agian</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246554960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe if you actually looked into the settings of IE before deciding that Microsoft were being sly again you might have realized that when the IE search provider is set to Google all your url queries will go to...Google. Funny that!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe if you actually looked into the settings of IE before deciding that Microsoft were being sly again you might have realized that when the IE search provider is set to Google all your url queries will go to...Google .
Funny that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe if you actually looked into the settings of IE before deciding that Microsoft were being sly again you might have realized that when the IE search provider is set to Google all your url queries will go to...Google.
Funny that!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566353</id>
	<title>Why the hell do I still visit Slashdot?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246539300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the guys posting stories can't be bothered to read the articles, why should I?</p><p>Fuck this place, I'm out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the guys posting stories ca n't be bothered to read the articles , why should I ? Fuck this place , I 'm out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the guys posting stories can't be bothered to read the articles, why should I?Fuck this place, I'm out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28570587
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28577765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28577095
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28570135
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28572997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28570027
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28572129
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28582563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569679
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28577781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567983
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567097
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568099
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566701
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568565
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28570687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569351
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566815
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567993
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569067
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567061
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567701
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566843
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566251
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28577973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28577831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569119
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566251
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567683
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567579
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568919
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28571131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28571943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28570515
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568533
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28570019
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28577791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28570301
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567361
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567045
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28577711
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567205
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28572601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569209
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28570015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569009
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28574715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28571037
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28570177
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566481
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568253
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566701
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569667
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28579373
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567845
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28570535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28577837
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568263
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567329
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566709
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28571589
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569229
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28570241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567607
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2255241_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566251
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566549
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2255241.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28570535
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28577837
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2255241.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568791
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2255241.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568709
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2255241.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566413
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567363
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568517
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2255241.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567533
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28577831
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28570587
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28570241
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2255241.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566251
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567005
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28577973
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567683
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566549
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2255241.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567061
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567701
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2255241.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566287
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568759
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28571943
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566867
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28577781
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28570135
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566901
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566465
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28572997
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566709
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566481
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28570177
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28577765
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568563
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569679
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2255241.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567341
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2255241.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566235
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2255241.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566205
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567361
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569119
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566233
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28570015
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567633
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567877
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28570027
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567993
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28577711
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567329
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568247
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567845
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568131
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568059
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567207
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568565
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2255241.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569051
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2255241.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567053
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2255241.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566841
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568263
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2255241.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566331
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28577791
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569333
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569351
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567607
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566665
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28570301
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567091
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566601
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2255241.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566393
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567377
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566843
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567007
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2255241.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566137
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567579
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567507
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566557
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28582563
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28572601
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566963
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567591
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569067
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567999
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569295
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566283
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569361
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28579373
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569195
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566473
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568533
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28571589
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568253
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28577095
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569365
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28574715
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567717
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28572129
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566303
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566831
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568459
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567111
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567295
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566627
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568009
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569161
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569313
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569021
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28571131
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569209
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569727
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28571037
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569009
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2255241.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566289
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566407
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566917
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568099
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2255241.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566617
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568127
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569229
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568223
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2255241.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567205
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2255241.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566299
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2255241.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566455
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2255241.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566169
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566559
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2255241.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566207
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567097
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567983
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28570019
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566701
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569667
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569307
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566539
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2255241.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566661
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566815
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2255241.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566765
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2255241.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566167
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566659
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28567045
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2255241.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566353
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2255241.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566229
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2255241.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566477
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28569171
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568919
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2255241.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28570145
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2255241.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28566397
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28570687
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28570515
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2255241.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2255241.28568423
</commentlist>
</conversation>
