<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_08_0953238</id>
	<title>Google Announces Chrome OS, For Release Mid-2010</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1247055240000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Zaiff Urgulbunger writes <i>"After <a href="//slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/22/1415221&amp;tid=217">years</a> <a href="//slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/31/1519224&amp;tid=217">of</a> <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/06/03/1521243/Googles-Android-To-Challenge-Windows?from=rss">speculation</a>, Google has <a href="http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html">announced Google Chrome OS</a>, which should be available mid-2010. Initially targeting netbooks, its main selling points are speed, simplicity and security &mdash; which kind of implies that the current No.1 OS doesn't deliver in these areas! The Chrome OS will run on both x86 and ARM architectures, uses a Linux kernel with a new windowing system. According to Google, 'For application developers, the web is the platform. All web-based applications will automatically work and new applications can be written using your favorite web technologies. And of course, these apps will run not only on Google Chrome OS, but on any standards-based browser on Windows, Mac and Linux thereby giving developers the largest user base of any platform.' Google says that this new OS is separate from Android, as the latter was designed for mobile phones and set-top boxes, whereas Chrome OS is designed 'for people who spend most of their time on the web.'"</i> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/technology/companies/08operate.htm?\_r=1">The New York Times' coverage</a> is worth reading, and there are stories popping up all over the web.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Zaiff Urgulbunger writes " After years of speculation , Google has announced Google Chrome OS , which should be available mid-2010 .
Initially targeting netbooks , its main selling points are speed , simplicity and security    which kind of implies that the current No.1 OS does n't deliver in these areas !
The Chrome OS will run on both x86 and ARM architectures , uses a Linux kernel with a new windowing system .
According to Google , 'For application developers , the web is the platform .
All web-based applications will automatically work and new applications can be written using your favorite web technologies .
And of course , these apps will run not only on Google Chrome OS , but on any standards-based browser on Windows , Mac and Linux thereby giving developers the largest user base of any platform .
' Google says that this new OS is separate from Android , as the latter was designed for mobile phones and set-top boxes , whereas Chrome OS is designed 'for people who spend most of their time on the web .
' " The New York Times ' coverage is worth reading , and there are stories popping up all over the web .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Zaiff Urgulbunger writes "After years of speculation, Google has announced Google Chrome OS, which should be available mid-2010.
Initially targeting netbooks, its main selling points are speed, simplicity and security — which kind of implies that the current No.1 OS doesn't deliver in these areas!
The Chrome OS will run on both x86 and ARM architectures, uses a Linux kernel with a new windowing system.
According to Google, 'For application developers, the web is the platform.
All web-based applications will automatically work and new applications can be written using your favorite web technologies.
And of course, these apps will run not only on Google Chrome OS, but on any standards-based browser on Windows, Mac and Linux thereby giving developers the largest user base of any platform.
' Google says that this new OS is separate from Android, as the latter was designed for mobile phones and set-top boxes, whereas Chrome OS is designed 'for people who spend most of their time on the web.
'" The New York Times' coverage is worth reading, and there are stories popping up all over the web.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621431</id>
	<title>Re:Why would I want this?</title>
	<author>nloop</author>
	<datestamp>1247064900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think making Yet Another Linux Distro would be a death sentence for it.  Who was the first to try that? Corel? Many have, all have failed.  It would be relegated to the niche Ubuntu already has.  <br> <br>The one company to really take a unixish kernel and succeed with it? Apple.  Many of your arguments could have been made about OS X and the BSD kernel it is based on.  I suspect this will be similarly non recognizable to the other OS's using its kernel, and probably have a similar port ability.  Taking all the obvious unix-like parts out of it really is required to get your grandmother to use it on her netbook.  Think about explaining<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/lib<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc to grandma.  It requires a complete rewrite.  <br> <br>I also think this is going to take the concept of an "app store" to the desktop, which you could certainly argue against, but google is not going to pigeonhole the OS into only web apps.  I'd bet body parts this will support Java and some form of native code.  <br> <br>I think it will be an interesting blur between smartphone and laptop functionality, for netbooks.  Them saying it is for netbooks is admitting it will not replace a full fledged OS, don't be afraid, other options will always be there. They aren't even aiming at replacing them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think making Yet Another Linux Distro would be a death sentence for it .
Who was the first to try that ?
Corel ? Many have , all have failed .
It would be relegated to the niche Ubuntu already has .
The one company to really take a unixish kernel and succeed with it ?
Apple. Many of your arguments could have been made about OS X and the BSD kernel it is based on .
I suspect this will be similarly non recognizable to the other OS 's using its kernel , and probably have a similar port ability .
Taking all the obvious unix-like parts out of it really is required to get your grandmother to use it on her netbook .
Think about explaining /usr /lib /etc to grandma .
It requires a complete rewrite .
I also think this is going to take the concept of an " app store " to the desktop , which you could certainly argue against , but google is not going to pigeonhole the OS into only web apps .
I 'd bet body parts this will support Java and some form of native code .
I think it will be an interesting blur between smartphone and laptop functionality , for netbooks .
Them saying it is for netbooks is admitting it will not replace a full fledged OS , do n't be afraid , other options will always be there .
They are n't even aiming at replacing them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think making Yet Another Linux Distro would be a death sentence for it.
Who was the first to try that?
Corel? Many have, all have failed.
It would be relegated to the niche Ubuntu already has.
The one company to really take a unixish kernel and succeed with it?
Apple.  Many of your arguments could have been made about OS X and the BSD kernel it is based on.
I suspect this will be similarly non recognizable to the other OS's using its kernel, and probably have a similar port ability.
Taking all the obvious unix-like parts out of it really is required to get your grandmother to use it on her netbook.
Think about explaining /usr /lib /etc to grandma.
It requires a complete rewrite.
I also think this is going to take the concept of an "app store" to the desktop, which you could certainly argue against, but google is not going to pigeonhole the OS into only web apps.
I'd bet body parts this will support Java and some form of native code.
I think it will be an interesting blur between smartphone and laptop functionality, for netbooks.
Them saying it is for netbooks is admitting it will not replace a full fledged OS, don't be afraid, other options will always be there.
They aren't even aiming at replacing them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623969</id>
	<title>Re:Why would I want this?</title>
	<author>logixoul</author>
	<datestamp>1247074080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Normal users won't dare install any thing called an operating system.</p></div><p>No, they'll just get it with their netbook.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Normal users wo n't dare install any thing called an operating system.No , they 'll just get it with their netbook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Normal users won't dare install any thing called an operating system.No, they'll just get it with their netbook.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620771</id>
	<title>If money was everything ....</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1247062740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... Google would not exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... Google would not exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... Google would not exist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620199</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621523</id>
	<title>Pwn3d OS</title>
	<author>SleeknStealthy</author>
	<datestamp>1247065320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All Your Base Are Belong To Us</htmltext>
<tokenext>All Your Base Are Belong To Us</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All Your Base Are Belong To Us</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28633805</id>
	<title>Re:Competition is good, baby!</title>
	<author>Flipao</author>
	<datestamp>1247135580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Actually I'd be more worried about privacy.
Can I assume everthing I do (or browse) will be reported back to Google?</p></div><p>Of course Mr Ballmer, sure, I can't think of a greater danger to privacy than a lightweight, open source OS.<br> <br>

Of course if your concern is aimed at Google in general then (as always) competition is just a click away.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually I 'd be more worried about privacy .
Can I assume everthing I do ( or browse ) will be reported back to Google ? Of course Mr Ballmer , sure , I ca n't think of a greater danger to privacy than a lightweight , open source OS .
Of course if your concern is aimed at Google in general then ( as always ) competition is just a click away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually I'd be more worried about privacy.
Can I assume everthing I do (or browse) will be reported back to Google?Of course Mr Ballmer, sure, I can't think of a greater danger to privacy than a lightweight, open source OS.
Of course if your concern is aimed at Google in general then (as always) competition is just a click away.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623393</id>
	<title>Re:Fast web OS needed!</title>
	<author>RiotingPacifist</author>
	<datestamp>1247072040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>how can a local application compete with powerful servers, it takes my pings 20ms to get to google and back, on old computer (42,000rpm drive) can take a similar amount of time to read its disks (14ms worst-case 7avg), but the processing by google can be nearly instant. Say i want to do 4 things at once that all require small amounts of disk access e.g listen to music,browse the web, im friends, have my email client running, on my computer the disk will spend 7*4=28ms running around touching these files, if i throw this all to google they probably have what i want stored in ram and the whole thing will take 20ms.</p><p>Obviously this isn't entirely fair as most OSs will cache files and unless your using fsync too much (stares at firefox) you don't have to wait for the disk read/writes, but this is basically why internet-based apps can compete.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>how can a local application compete with powerful servers , it takes my pings 20ms to get to google and back , on old computer ( 42,000rpm drive ) can take a similar amount of time to read its disks ( 14ms worst-case 7avg ) , but the processing by google can be nearly instant .
Say i want to do 4 things at once that all require small amounts of disk access e.g listen to music,browse the web , im friends , have my email client running , on my computer the disk will spend 7 * 4 = 28ms running around touching these files , if i throw this all to google they probably have what i want stored in ram and the whole thing will take 20ms.Obviously this is n't entirely fair as most OSs will cache files and unless your using fsync too much ( stares at firefox ) you do n't have to wait for the disk read/writes , but this is basically why internet-based apps can compete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how can a local application compete with powerful servers, it takes my pings 20ms to get to google and back, on old computer (42,000rpm drive) can take a similar amount of time to read its disks (14ms worst-case 7avg), but the processing by google can be nearly instant.
Say i want to do 4 things at once that all require small amounts of disk access e.g listen to music,browse the web, im friends, have my email client running, on my computer the disk will spend 7*4=28ms running around touching these files, if i throw this all to google they probably have what i want stored in ram and the whole thing will take 20ms.Obviously this isn't entirely fair as most OSs will cache files and unless your using fsync too much (stares at firefox) you don't have to wait for the disk read/writes, but this is basically why internet-based apps can compete.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28628735</id>
	<title>World of Warcraft?</title>
	<author>Morbidsoul</author>
	<datestamp>1247049540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wake me up when I can play World of Warcraft on it without jumping through hoops and editing random files.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wake me up when I can play World of Warcraft on it without jumping through hoops and editing random files .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wake me up when I can play World of Warcraft on it without jumping through hoops and editing random files.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620861</id>
	<title>Will it support Internet Explorer?</title>
	<author>Chrisq</author>
	<datestamp>1247063040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Will it support Internet Explorer? Seriously this could be a propaganda coup for Microsoft. The layman who does not understand open source or the fact that Microsoft would be free to produce a version for explorer for any open OS . I can imagine some M$ lawyer saying "why do you complain about Windows coming bundled with explorer and not Chrome when you can't even <b>run</b> explorer in the Chrome OS".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will it support Internet Explorer ?
Seriously this could be a propaganda coup for Microsoft .
The layman who does not understand open source or the fact that Microsoft would be free to produce a version for explorer for any open OS .
I can imagine some M $ lawyer saying " why do you complain about Windows coming bundled with explorer and not Chrome when you ca n't even run explorer in the Chrome OS " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will it support Internet Explorer?
Seriously this could be a propaganda coup for Microsoft.
The layman who does not understand open source or the fact that Microsoft would be free to produce a version for explorer for any open OS .
I can imagine some M$ lawyer saying "why do you complain about Windows coming bundled with explorer and not Chrome when you can't even run explorer in the Chrome OS".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621465</id>
	<title>MSFTs momentum :)</title>
	<author>viralMeme</author>
	<datestamp>1247065140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"<i>Typically Google<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. may be rushing to get some attention and to curtail MSFTs momentum</i>"<br> <br>

A search engine<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. somewhat similar in functionality to Google, except 'more' is spelt an uppercase '<strong>M</strong>'. '<i>Google announced their very own browser project called Google Chrome</i>' <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/01/162224&amp;from=rss" title="slashdot.org">Sep 2008</a> [slashdot.org] <br> <br>

Google: <strong>Web, Images, Video, Maps, News, Shopping, Mail, more</strong> <br> <br>

Bing: <strong>Web, Images, Videos, Shopping, News, Maps, More</strong></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Typically Google .. may be rushing to get some attention and to curtail MSFTs momentum " A search engine .. somewhat similar in functionality to Google , except 'more ' is spelt an uppercase 'M' .
'Google announced their very own browser project called Google Chrome ' Sep 2008 [ slashdot.org ] Google : Web , Images , Video , Maps , News , Shopping , Mail , more Bing : Web , Images , Videos , Shopping , News , Maps , More</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Typically Google .. may be rushing to get some attention and to curtail MSFTs momentum" 

A search engine .. somewhat similar in functionality to Google, except 'more' is spelt an uppercase 'M'.
'Google announced their very own browser project called Google Chrome' Sep 2008 [slashdot.org]  

Google: Web, Images, Video, Maps, News, Shopping, Mail, more  

Bing: Web, Images, Videos, Shopping, News, Maps, More</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620305</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620409</id>
	<title>Re:Yawn, another distro?</title>
	<author>An Onerous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1247061300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right.  This will be no different.</p><p>It will <i>also</i> be way better than Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right .
This will be no different.It will also be way better than Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right.
This will be no different.It will also be way better than Windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620305</id>
	<title>A (rushed) move to counter bing.com?</title>
	<author>levicivita</author>
	<datestamp>1247060820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Typically Google tends to announce out of the blue a <b> <i>completed</i></b>  new innovative service or product.  Google Chrome for example was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google\_Chrome#Announcement" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">announced and released</a> [wikipedia.org] in a matter of 1-2 days.  I suspect that because of MSFTs heavy investment and advertising of Bing, Google might feel the need to retaliate.  They may have been planning a Google OS for a while - I personally have been expecting this move for years - but they may be rushing to get some attention and to curtail MSFTs momentum.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Typically Google tends to announce out of the blue a completed new innovative service or product .
Google Chrome for example was announced and released [ wikipedia.org ] in a matter of 1-2 days .
I suspect that because of MSFTs heavy investment and advertising of Bing , Google might feel the need to retaliate .
They may have been planning a Google OS for a while - I personally have been expecting this move for years - but they may be rushing to get some attention and to curtail MSFTs momentum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Typically Google tends to announce out of the blue a  completed  new innovative service or product.
Google Chrome for example was announced and released [wikipedia.org] in a matter of 1-2 days.
I suspect that because of MSFTs heavy investment and advertising of Bing, Google might feel the need to retaliate.
They may have been planning a Google OS for a while - I personally have been expecting this move for years - but they may be rushing to get some attention and to curtail MSFTs momentum.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620501</id>
	<title>Good luck blocking adverts</title>
	<author>martinmarv</author>
	<datestamp>1247061720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Google are running the OS, the chances of being able to stop adverts with an Adblock-plus-like extension are slim, and even running your own local proxy or editing the hosts file might be impossible!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Google are running the OS , the chances of being able to stop adverts with an Adblock-plus-like extension are slim , and even running your own local proxy or editing the hosts file might be impossible !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Google are running the OS, the chances of being able to stop adverts with an Adblock-plus-like extension are slim, and even running your own local proxy or editing the hosts file might be impossible!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623285</id>
	<title>Re:Mcdonaldsoft rival at last!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247071620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's GOOD that it is going to run on Linux kernel, be open source and pushed to OEMs. The BAD is that it will be encumbered by Google's horrible data gathering, retention and privacy policies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's GOOD that it is going to run on Linux kernel , be open source and pushed to OEMs .
The BAD is that it will be encumbered by Google 's horrible data gathering , retention and privacy policies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's GOOD that it is going to run on Linux kernel, be open source and pushed to OEMs.
The BAD is that it will be encumbered by Google's horrible data gathering, retention and privacy policies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28628871</id>
	<title>MS can't do this, but Google can</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247050140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was a topic on here about how the stripped-down version of Windows for developing nations could only run a handful of applications at one time, and the outcry was incredible. Now, Google comes out with Chrome, an OS that can only run ONE application - Google's own web browser - and they are the new savior from Microsoft.</p><p>P.S. I'm a Mac user, so when I think the Google fanboism has gone way too far, that's pretty bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a topic on here about how the stripped-down version of Windows for developing nations could only run a handful of applications at one time , and the outcry was incredible .
Now , Google comes out with Chrome , an OS that can only run ONE application - Google 's own web browser - and they are the new savior from Microsoft.P.S .
I 'm a Mac user , so when I think the Google fanboism has gone way too far , that 's pretty bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a topic on here about how the stripped-down version of Windows for developing nations could only run a handful of applications at one time, and the outcry was incredible.
Now, Google comes out with Chrome, an OS that can only run ONE application - Google's own web browser - and they are the new savior from Microsoft.P.S.
I'm a Mac user, so when I think the Google fanboism has gone way too far, that's pretty bad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620869</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>EraserMouseMan</author>
	<datestamp>1247063100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yea, it's good that Apple will finally have some competition. Now the iPhone/MacBook crowd who only use their computer for dicking around on the Internet will have another choice that doesn't involve paying for the Apple logo.
<br> <br>
Of course without that logo you won't be officially in the club anymore. But since allegiance to Google's latest innovations has the same anti-MS/elitist vibe can't we create a new Apple Club "Associate Member" status?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea , it 's good that Apple will finally have some competition .
Now the iPhone/MacBook crowd who only use their computer for dicking around on the Internet will have another choice that does n't involve paying for the Apple logo .
Of course without that logo you wo n't be officially in the club anymore .
But since allegiance to Google 's latest innovations has the same anti-MS/elitist vibe ca n't we create a new Apple Club " Associate Member " status ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea, it's good that Apple will finally have some competition.
Now the iPhone/MacBook crowd who only use their computer for dicking around on the Internet will have another choice that doesn't involve paying for the Apple logo.
Of course without that logo you won't be officially in the club anymore.
But since allegiance to Google's latest innovations has the same anti-MS/elitist vibe can't we create a new Apple Club "Associate Member" status?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28626101</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1247081460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In all fairness I think the two week promotion is still going on where you can preorder Windows 7 right now for $49.99. I actually preordered a legal copy.</p><p>I love me some Linux, but I like Windows 7 as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In all fairness I think the two week promotion is still going on where you can preorder Windows 7 right now for $ 49.99 .
I actually preordered a legal copy.I love me some Linux , but I like Windows 7 as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In all fairness I think the two week promotion is still going on where you can preorder Windows 7 right now for $49.99.
I actually preordered a legal copy.I love me some Linux, but I like Windows 7 as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620149</id>
	<title>Fast web OS needed!</title>
	<author>thijsh</author>
	<datestamp>1247060100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Computers need to get better. People want to get to their email instantly, without wasting time waiting for their computers to boot and browsers to start up. They want their computers to always run as fast as when they first bought them.</p></div><p>They are trying to fill a niche of an OS that boots fast and is basically just a browser. This OS will have a desktop with some online favourites... and that might be just what you need on a <b>NET</b>book..!<br>
Gmail already looks like a standalone app on Windows with Google Chrome and Offline enabled, you get a nice icon on the desktop. And when you click it it loads in a second, instead of the several minutes my Outlook used to take to even be barely useable. The choice is clear, sluggish native apps are becoming obsolete, and lightweight online apps are becoming more and more reliable. And when you only use these kind of netapps, why bother installing a bloated OS. This might just be the next revolution in the netbook industry.<br>
<br>
On a side note: I can't wait until a new OS finally achieves the startup times of the good old trusy Commodore 64.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Computers need to get better .
People want to get to their email instantly , without wasting time waiting for their computers to boot and browsers to start up .
They want their computers to always run as fast as when they first bought them.They are trying to fill a niche of an OS that boots fast and is basically just a browser .
This OS will have a desktop with some online favourites... and that might be just what you need on a NETbook.. !
Gmail already looks like a standalone app on Windows with Google Chrome and Offline enabled , you get a nice icon on the desktop .
And when you click it it loads in a second , instead of the several minutes my Outlook used to take to even be barely useable .
The choice is clear , sluggish native apps are becoming obsolete , and lightweight online apps are becoming more and more reliable .
And when you only use these kind of netapps , why bother installing a bloated OS .
This might just be the next revolution in the netbook industry .
On a side note : I ca n't wait until a new OS finally achieves the startup times of the good old trusy Commodore 64. : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Computers need to get better.
People want to get to their email instantly, without wasting time waiting for their computers to boot and browsers to start up.
They want their computers to always run as fast as when they first bought them.They are trying to fill a niche of an OS that boots fast and is basically just a browser.
This OS will have a desktop with some online favourites... and that might be just what you need on a NETbook..!
Gmail already looks like a standalone app on Windows with Google Chrome and Offline enabled, you get a nice icon on the desktop.
And when you click it it loads in a second, instead of the several minutes my Outlook used to take to even be barely useable.
The choice is clear, sluggish native apps are becoming obsolete, and lightweight online apps are becoming more and more reliable.
And when you only use these kind of netapps, why bother installing a bloated OS.
This might just be the next revolution in the netbook industry.
On a side note: I can't wait until a new OS finally achieves the startup times of the good old trusy Commodore 64. :-)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622891</id>
	<title>All your packets are belong to Google...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247070180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, when are people going to realize that Google stopped not being evil quite a long time ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , when are people going to realize that Google stopped not being evil quite a long time ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, when are people going to realize that Google stopped not being evil quite a long time ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620697</id>
	<title>Re:Fast web OS needed!</title>
	<author>prcko</author>
	<datestamp>1247062500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And when you click it it loads in a second, instead of the several minutes my Outlook used to take to even be barely useable. The choice is clear, sluggish native apps are becoming obsolete, and lightweight online apps are becoming more and more reliable. And when you only use these kind of netapps, why bother installing a bloated OS.</p></div><p>
Lately, this confuses me a lot. NATIVE, LOCAL applications are actually slower and more sluggish then networked, script-based apps. I mean, shouldn't the native, local apps be far more superior to scripted Internet-based apps when it comes to speed and response time; no matter how much you can optimise the rendering and script engines? It doesn't seem logical to me, anyways...
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And when you click it it loads in a second , instead of the several minutes my Outlook used to take to even be barely useable .
The choice is clear , sluggish native apps are becoming obsolete , and lightweight online apps are becoming more and more reliable .
And when you only use these kind of netapps , why bother installing a bloated OS .
Lately , this confuses me a lot .
NATIVE , LOCAL applications are actually slower and more sluggish then networked , script-based apps .
I mean , should n't the native , local apps be far more superior to scripted Internet-based apps when it comes to speed and response time ; no matter how much you can optimise the rendering and script engines ?
It does n't seem logical to me , anyways.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And when you click it it loads in a second, instead of the several minutes my Outlook used to take to even be barely useable.
The choice is clear, sluggish native apps are becoming obsolete, and lightweight online apps are becoming more and more reliable.
And when you only use these kind of netapps, why bother installing a bloated OS.
Lately, this confuses me a lot.
NATIVE, LOCAL applications are actually slower and more sluggish then networked, script-based apps.
I mean, shouldn't the native, local apps be far more superior to scripted Internet-based apps when it comes to speed and response time; no matter how much you can optimise the rendering and script engines?
It doesn't seem logical to me, anyways...

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621763</id>
	<title>Re:Why would I want this?</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1247066220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Normal users won't dare install any thing called an operating system.</i> </p><p>This thing will be pre-installed, no need to install it. You'll buy an ARM netbook (then undoubtedly desktops) with Chrome OS on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Normal users wo n't dare install any thing called an operating system .
This thing will be pre-installed , no need to install it .
You 'll buy an ARM netbook ( then undoubtedly desktops ) with Chrome OS on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Normal users won't dare install any thing called an operating system.
This thing will be pre-installed, no need to install it.
You'll buy an ARM netbook (then undoubtedly desktops) with Chrome OS on it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620199</id>
	<title>This recession is a good time to strike</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247060340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Deep pockets versus deeper pockets.  Google's market cap is $125b and Microsoft's is $200b.  Not long ago, the gap was larger.  Falling PC sales have taken a bite out of Microsoft's revenue.  They recently had their first down quarter in their history.</p><p>Microsoft still makes 4X the money Google does, though.  In 2008, Microsoft earned $17b in net income compared to Google's $4b.  Now, $4b is nothing to dismiss, especially when you're using and writing entirely free and open source software, but still, if Google has deep pockets, Microsoft's are even deeper.</p><p>See: <a href="http://www.google.com/finance?q=msft" title="google.com">MSFT</a> [google.com] and <a href="http://www.google.com/finance?q=goog" title="google.com">GOOG</a> [google.com] </p><p>.

</p><p>Google is probably the only company in the world that can generate excitement about a new OS, and making an open platform will encourage software developers to write apps for it.  Hasn't that been one of the big complaints, the lack of software for Linux?</p><p>Many have tried taking down Microsoft.  All have failed.  Perhaps Google is finally the David to slay Microsoft's Goliath.  Perhaps not.  Exciting times, these are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Deep pockets versus deeper pockets .
Google 's market cap is $ 125b and Microsoft 's is $ 200b .
Not long ago , the gap was larger .
Falling PC sales have taken a bite out of Microsoft 's revenue .
They recently had their first down quarter in their history.Microsoft still makes 4X the money Google does , though .
In 2008 , Microsoft earned $ 17b in net income compared to Google 's $ 4b .
Now , $ 4b is nothing to dismiss , especially when you 're using and writing entirely free and open source software , but still , if Google has deep pockets , Microsoft 's are even deeper.See : MSFT [ google.com ] and GOOG [ google.com ] .
Google is probably the only company in the world that can generate excitement about a new OS , and making an open platform will encourage software developers to write apps for it .
Has n't that been one of the big complaints , the lack of software for Linux ? Many have tried taking down Microsoft .
All have failed .
Perhaps Google is finally the David to slay Microsoft 's Goliath .
Perhaps not .
Exciting times , these are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Deep pockets versus deeper pockets.
Google's market cap is $125b and Microsoft's is $200b.
Not long ago, the gap was larger.
Falling PC sales have taken a bite out of Microsoft's revenue.
They recently had their first down quarter in their history.Microsoft still makes 4X the money Google does, though.
In 2008, Microsoft earned $17b in net income compared to Google's $4b.
Now, $4b is nothing to dismiss, especially when you're using and writing entirely free and open source software, but still, if Google has deep pockets, Microsoft's are even deeper.See: MSFT [google.com] and GOOG [google.com] .
Google is probably the only company in the world that can generate excitement about a new OS, and making an open platform will encourage software developers to write apps for it.
Hasn't that been one of the big complaints, the lack of software for Linux?Many have tried taking down Microsoft.
All have failed.
Perhaps Google is finally the David to slay Microsoft's Goliath.
Perhaps not.
Exciting times, these are.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622071</id>
	<title>Uhm...</title>
	<author>LKM</author>
	<datestamp>1247067420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Canvas. Gears. Next question?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Canvas .
Gears. Next question ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Canvas.
Gears. Next question?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620145</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28626537</id>
	<title>It's Microsoft's fault!</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1247082840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Calling any runtime an "operating system", whether it actually implements and exposes a full menu of OS APIs and subsystems, is worse than an error, it's a sin.</p><p>I blame Microsoft. If the DOS-based Windows could be called an OS, anything could.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Calling any runtime an " operating system " , whether it actually implements and exposes a full menu of OS APIs and subsystems , is worse than an error , it 's a sin.I blame Microsoft .
If the DOS-based Windows could be called an OS , anything could .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Calling any runtime an "operating system", whether it actually implements and exposes a full menu of OS APIs and subsystems, is worse than an error, it's a sin.I blame Microsoft.
If the DOS-based Windows could be called an OS, anything could.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28627585</id>
	<title>Re:Why would I want this?</title>
	<author>thinkloop</author>
	<datestamp>1247043900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is not your grandpa's thin client. Imagine you had your desktop exactly as it was, with the slight modification that it would back itself up silently to a server of your choosing. Then if you bought a new computer, or used someone else's computer, you could login into your account, have it rebuild/resume your saved state, allowing you to continue running your apps locally. Wouldn't that just be better in every way?

That's where Google's going, and why they are pursuing something as costly are gargantuan as building an OS. Otherwise, they would just continue to build for the browser.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not your grandpa 's thin client .
Imagine you had your desktop exactly as it was , with the slight modification that it would back itself up silently to a server of your choosing .
Then if you bought a new computer , or used someone else 's computer , you could login into your account , have it rebuild/resume your saved state , allowing you to continue running your apps locally .
Would n't that just be better in every way ?
That 's where Google 's going , and why they are pursuing something as costly are gargantuan as building an OS .
Otherwise , they would just continue to build for the browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not your grandpa's thin client.
Imagine you had your desktop exactly as it was, with the slight modification that it would back itself up silently to a server of your choosing.
Then if you bought a new computer, or used someone else's computer, you could login into your account, have it rebuild/resume your saved state, allowing you to continue running your apps locally.
Wouldn't that just be better in every way?
That's where Google's going, and why they are pursuing something as costly are gargantuan as building an OS.
Otherwise, they would just continue to build for the browser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28645753</id>
	<title>Re:Why would I want this?</title>
	<author>dewatf</author>
	<datestamp>1247157240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&lt;quote&gt;This is a Linux distro that can't run any non-google-SDK software. No X server wipes out being able to run most of the GUI software in the ecosystem. You locked to google. Why would I want this?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>The best google could have done is done yet another standard Linux distro, with X in some form, so they can tap into the existing software ecosystem. &lt;/quote&gt;<br><br>The reason you want this is because you sitting a coffee shop and want to something quickly without booting Windows7. Google have a vision of the thin client, and it is an old vision, but these days there is fast wireless and the software available to do it and the sales of netbooks indicate there is a lot of demand for the idea.<br><br>Google can't use Linux/GNU/X11/KDE/Gnome because it has already failed in the Netbook environment. It is too bloated and overly complex for doing simple stuff and no one but a Linux geek can get it to work. While X11 isn't that bad it is based on an out-dated local server/client model, the sever runs as root and it is not easy to develop for. If want to add to X you end up with complexity and diversity of a multitude of libraries and the whole KDE/Gnome thing. This makes Linux a difficult environment to develop for (as Google complained about with Chrome), unless you have lots of keen volunteers doing all the work. Very few commercial businesses have seen any profit from in getting into the Linux desktop.<br><br>Vista was a debarcle and has also failed in netbooks since it is way too bloated. Apple haven't bothered with the net book market at all relying on the iPhone. I would have thought Google would go with Android, but they have obviously realised that while it works for PDAs and phones it won't scale up.<br><br>The Netbook winner so far has thus been Window XP, with ASUS doing very minor business with Xandros!<br>Thus Google is dependent mostly on XP to run the platform they want -- that is hardly nice or secure. Microsoft's plan is for a plethora of versions of Windows 7 offering one platform from PDAs and Netbooks up to servers. If Google doesn't want to be dependent on Microsoft they have a problem.<br><br>So first Google designed a browser to be fast and secure and that runs applications twice as fast on XP as Firefox. Sure it it is a memory hog but how much does 1GB of RAM cost these days? . Second Google have announced a replacement for Windows XP on netbooks just before Microsoft replace it with Windows 7 and everyone starts talking about how complete Microsoft's domination of the market will be. A bit of old fashion FUD to make up for the fact that Google are 12 months too late with delivering something to compete with Windows 7.<br><br>The idea that Chrome OS will be some replacement for or compete with the Linux development environment is just wrong. Google have simply seen a gap in the market and want something fast and secure that manufacturers will install on netbooks for surfing and web applications and that will stop Microsoft gaining complete dominance. So they are cobbling together something from what they have as quickly as possible.<br><br>Personally a cheap Netbook that I can use to surf, email, watch the Tour de France on and use to play online bridge with, all of which all only requires Chrome with Flash 10, without Windows 7 sounds good to me.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a Linux distro that ca n't run any non-google-SDK software .
No X server wipes out being able to run most of the GUI software in the ecosystem .
You locked to google .
Why would I want this ?
...The best google could have done is done yet another standard Linux distro , with X in some form , so they can tap into the existing software ecosystem .
The reason you want this is because you sitting a coffee shop and want to something quickly without booting Windows7 .
Google have a vision of the thin client , and it is an old vision , but these days there is fast wireless and the software available to do it and the sales of netbooks indicate there is a lot of demand for the idea.Google ca n't use Linux/GNU/X11/KDE/Gnome because it has already failed in the Netbook environment .
It is too bloated and overly complex for doing simple stuff and no one but a Linux geek can get it to work .
While X11 is n't that bad it is based on an out-dated local server/client model , the sever runs as root and it is not easy to develop for .
If want to add to X you end up with complexity and diversity of a multitude of libraries and the whole KDE/Gnome thing .
This makes Linux a difficult environment to develop for ( as Google complained about with Chrome ) , unless you have lots of keen volunteers doing all the work .
Very few commercial businesses have seen any profit from in getting into the Linux desktop.Vista was a debarcle and has also failed in netbooks since it is way too bloated .
Apple have n't bothered with the net book market at all relying on the iPhone .
I would have thought Google would go with Android , but they have obviously realised that while it works for PDAs and phones it wo n't scale up.The Netbook winner so far has thus been Window XP , with ASUS doing very minor business with Xandros ! Thus Google is dependent mostly on XP to run the platform they want -- that is hardly nice or secure .
Microsoft 's plan is for a plethora of versions of Windows 7 offering one platform from PDAs and Netbooks up to servers .
If Google does n't want to be dependent on Microsoft they have a problem.So first Google designed a browser to be fast and secure and that runs applications twice as fast on XP as Firefox .
Sure it it is a memory hog but how much does 1GB of RAM cost these days ?
. Second Google have announced a replacement for Windows XP on netbooks just before Microsoft replace it with Windows 7 and everyone starts talking about how complete Microsoft 's domination of the market will be .
A bit of old fashion FUD to make up for the fact that Google are 12 months too late with delivering something to compete with Windows 7.The idea that Chrome OS will be some replacement for or compete with the Linux development environment is just wrong .
Google have simply seen a gap in the market and want something fast and secure that manufacturers will install on netbooks for surfing and web applications and that will stop Microsoft gaining complete dominance .
So they are cobbling together something from what they have as quickly as possible.Personally a cheap Netbook that I can use to surf , email , watch the Tour de France on and use to play online bridge with , all of which all only requires Chrome with Flash 10 , without Windows 7 sounds good to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a Linux distro that can't run any non-google-SDK software.
No X server wipes out being able to run most of the GUI software in the ecosystem.
You locked to google.
Why would I want this?
...The best google could have done is done yet another standard Linux distro, with X in some form, so they can tap into the existing software ecosystem.
The reason you want this is because you sitting a coffee shop and want to something quickly without booting Windows7.
Google have a vision of the thin client, and it is an old vision, but these days there is fast wireless and the software available to do it and the sales of netbooks indicate there is a lot of demand for the idea.Google can't use Linux/GNU/X11/KDE/Gnome because it has already failed in the Netbook environment.
It is too bloated and overly complex for doing simple stuff and no one but a Linux geek can get it to work.
While X11 isn't that bad it is based on an out-dated local server/client model, the sever runs as root and it is not easy to develop for.
If want to add to X you end up with complexity and diversity of a multitude of libraries and the whole KDE/Gnome thing.
This makes Linux a difficult environment to develop for (as Google complained about with Chrome), unless you have lots of keen volunteers doing all the work.
Very few commercial businesses have seen any profit from in getting into the Linux desktop.Vista was a debarcle and has also failed in netbooks since it is way too bloated.
Apple haven't bothered with the net book market at all relying on the iPhone.
I would have thought Google would go with Android, but they have obviously realised that while it works for PDAs and phones it won't scale up.The Netbook winner so far has thus been Window XP, with ASUS doing very minor business with Xandros!Thus Google is dependent mostly on XP to run the platform they want -- that is hardly nice or secure.
Microsoft's plan is for a plethora of versions of Windows 7 offering one platform from PDAs and Netbooks up to servers.
If Google doesn't want to be dependent on Microsoft they have a problem.So first Google designed a browser to be fast and secure and that runs applications twice as fast on XP as Firefox.
Sure it it is a memory hog but how much does 1GB of RAM cost these days?
. Second Google have announced a replacement for Windows XP on netbooks just before Microsoft replace it with Windows 7 and everyone starts talking about how complete Microsoft's domination of the market will be.
A bit of old fashion FUD to make up for the fact that Google are 12 months too late with delivering something to compete with Windows 7.The idea that Chrome OS will be some replacement for or compete with the Linux development environment is just wrong.
Google have simply seen a gap in the market and want something fast and secure that manufacturers will install on netbooks for surfing and web applications and that will stop Microsoft gaining complete dominance.
So they are cobbling together something from what they have as quickly as possible.Personally a cheap Netbook that I can use to surf, email, watch the Tour de France on and use to play online bridge with, all of which all only requires Chrome with Flash 10, without Windows 7 sounds good to me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623459</id>
	<title>Re:The web is NOT the OS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247072340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The web is email, ftp, live video, instant messaging, word processing, photo galleries, forums, flash, games, television... You get the idea.</p></div><p>You forgot porn.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The web is email , ftp , live video , instant messaging , word processing , photo galleries , forums , flash , games , television... You get the idea.You forgot porn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The web is email, ftp, live video, instant messaging, word processing, photo galleries, forums, flash, games, television... You get the idea.You forgot porn.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625933</id>
	<title>Re:Will it support Internet Explorer?</title>
	<author>rliden</author>
	<datestamp>1247080980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The question isn't whether it will run IE.  The question is will it run any other browser (Firefox, Opera, Konq, or any XUL based browser) but Chrome without those browser projects having to completely rewrite their apps.  The question is how easy will it be to install a third party browser?</p><p>I think it's important to point out the difference in browsing capabilities between Firefox and Chrome. I use Firefox specifically because ABP and NoScript allow me to easily control the browsing experience.  Chrome doesn't offer that capability and Google doesn't seem interested in making it easy for third party developers to implement that functionality, especially not like Mozilla has.  If we can't install our browsers of choice then we are locked into Google's internet experience, surfing how they want us to, collecting the information they want from us, and controlling how and what applications can function.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The question is n't whether it will run IE .
The question is will it run any other browser ( Firefox , Opera , Konq , or any XUL based browser ) but Chrome without those browser projects having to completely rewrite their apps .
The question is how easy will it be to install a third party browser ? I think it 's important to point out the difference in browsing capabilities between Firefox and Chrome .
I use Firefox specifically because ABP and NoScript allow me to easily control the browsing experience .
Chrome does n't offer that capability and Google does n't seem interested in making it easy for third party developers to implement that functionality , especially not like Mozilla has .
If we ca n't install our browsers of choice then we are locked into Google 's internet experience , surfing how they want us to , collecting the information they want from us , and controlling how and what applications can function .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question isn't whether it will run IE.
The question is will it run any other browser (Firefox, Opera, Konq, or any XUL based browser) but Chrome without those browser projects having to completely rewrite their apps.
The question is how easy will it be to install a third party browser?I think it's important to point out the difference in browsing capabilities between Firefox and Chrome.
I use Firefox specifically because ABP and NoScript allow me to easily control the browsing experience.
Chrome doesn't offer that capability and Google doesn't seem interested in making it easy for third party developers to implement that functionality, especially not like Mozilla has.
If we can't install our browsers of choice then we are locked into Google's internet experience, surfing how they want us to, collecting the information they want from us, and controlling how and what applications can function.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623387</id>
	<title>interesting and slighly worrying</title>
	<author>pjr.cc</author>
	<datestamp>1247072040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When they say "new windowing system" it sounds suspiciously like "this aint X buddy". Which means alot of linux software (for the desktop) wouldn't run on it anyways.</p><p>on the plus side, it probably means that google will push hardware makers down in to the "create some kernel modules" route (even if its a route similar to the one nvidia have adopted).</p><p>Interestingly, i blogged about an OS I thought would be perfect for google (also linux based) <a href="http://pjrlost.blogspot.com/2009/07/desktop-os-that-google-could-do.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://pjrlost.blogspot.com/2009/07/desktop-os-that-google-could-do.html</a> [blogspot.com] that was more along the lines of "consistent user experience" and a fully fledged OS.</p><p>The other thing that worries me is that google say things like "... need open source community<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..." and then bring us something like wave - "... need open source community help<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..." and i have yet to meet someone who is a FOSS dev who has access to the sandbox. So far its only been people at google or people sleeping with people at google. That was such a huge disappointment for someone who's a keen dev and was really impressed with a video... reminds me of the lovely vapourware concepts of not-so-long-ago</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When they say " new windowing system " it sounds suspiciously like " this aint X buddy " .
Which means alot of linux software ( for the desktop ) would n't run on it anyways.on the plus side , it probably means that google will push hardware makers down in to the " create some kernel modules " route ( even if its a route similar to the one nvidia have adopted ) .Interestingly , i blogged about an OS I thought would be perfect for google ( also linux based ) http : //pjrlost.blogspot.com/2009/07/desktop-os-that-google-could-do.html [ blogspot.com ] that was more along the lines of " consistent user experience " and a fully fledged OS.The other thing that worries me is that google say things like " ... need open source community ... " and then bring us something like wave - " ... need open source community help ... " and i have yet to meet someone who is a FOSS dev who has access to the sandbox .
So far its only been people at google or people sleeping with people at google .
That was such a huge disappointment for someone who 's a keen dev and was really impressed with a video... reminds me of the lovely vapourware concepts of not-so-long-ago</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When they say "new windowing system" it sounds suspiciously like "this aint X buddy".
Which means alot of linux software (for the desktop) wouldn't run on it anyways.on the plus side, it probably means that google will push hardware makers down in to the "create some kernel modules" route (even if its a route similar to the one nvidia have adopted).Interestingly, i blogged about an OS I thought would be perfect for google (also linux based) http://pjrlost.blogspot.com/2009/07/desktop-os-that-google-could-do.html [blogspot.com] that was more along the lines of "consistent user experience" and a fully fledged OS.The other thing that worries me is that google say things like "... need open source community ..." and then bring us something like wave - "... need open source community help ..." and i have yet to meet someone who is a FOSS dev who has access to the sandbox.
So far its only been people at google or people sleeping with people at google.
That was such a huge disappointment for someone who's a keen dev and was really impressed with a video... reminds me of the lovely vapourware concepts of not-so-long-ago</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623527</id>
	<title>Will be released this year</title>
	<author>nilbog</author>
	<datestamp>1247072520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chrome OS will be released this year, according to Google's announcement.  It just won't come stock on any netbooks until mid 2010.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chrome OS will be released this year , according to Google 's announcement .
It just wo n't come stock on any netbooks until mid 2010 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chrome OS will be released this year, according to Google's announcement.
It just won't come stock on any netbooks until mid 2010.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620819</id>
	<title>Re:This recession is a good time to strike</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1247062920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Microsoft still makes 4X the money Google does, though. In 2008, Microsoft earned $17b in net income compared to Google's $4b. Now, $4b is nothing to dismiss, especially when you're using and writing entirely free and open source software, but still, if Google has deep pockets, Microsoft's are even deeper.</i>
<br>True, but MS's expenses and commitments are SO much higher. They have their hand in just about all areas of IT and fighting on all fronts (and slowly losing on nearly all fronts except for possibly X-box).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft still makes 4X the money Google does , though .
In 2008 , Microsoft earned $ 17b in net income compared to Google 's $ 4b .
Now , $ 4b is nothing to dismiss , especially when you 're using and writing entirely free and open source software , but still , if Google has deep pockets , Microsoft 's are even deeper .
True , but MS 's expenses and commitments are SO much higher .
They have their hand in just about all areas of IT and fighting on all fronts ( and slowly losing on nearly all fronts except for possibly X-box ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft still makes 4X the money Google does, though.
In 2008, Microsoft earned $17b in net income compared to Google's $4b.
Now, $4b is nothing to dismiss, especially when you're using and writing entirely free and open source software, but still, if Google has deep pockets, Microsoft's are even deeper.
True, but MS's expenses and commitments are SO much higher.
They have their hand in just about all areas of IT and fighting on all fronts (and slowly losing on nearly all fronts except for possibly X-box).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620199</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620347</id>
	<title>Re:Fear</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247061060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The positive aspect is that even giant soulless corporations have decided that open source is in their best interests. Maybe once the spyware is stripped out there will be some small thing of use to us left.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The positive aspect is that even giant soulless corporations have decided that open source is in their best interests .
Maybe once the spyware is stripped out there will be some small thing of use to us left .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The positive aspect is that even giant soulless corporations have decided that open source is in their best interests.
Maybe once the spyware is stripped out there will be some small thing of use to us left.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619981</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620123</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247059980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Chrome OS focusing on speed, simplicity and security does not imply Windows cannot deliver in these areas. It's just an alternative operating system, and has yet to prove itself. The summary sound rather, well, dumb.<br></i></p><p>Oh, don't beat around the bush.  I'll come right out and say it.  I think Windows 7 is fast, safe, and simple to use.   I have Vista, Win7 and Ubuntu 8 on my machine, each with its own drive, and while Vista is a tad bit better than Ubuntu, Win7 runs rings around both, and is easier to use than either.  I do not think I have enjoyed using Windows this much since NT first got the Win95 shell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chrome OS focusing on speed , simplicity and security does not imply Windows can not deliver in these areas .
It 's just an alternative operating system , and has yet to prove itself .
The summary sound rather , well , dumb.Oh , do n't beat around the bush .
I 'll come right out and say it .
I think Windows 7 is fast , safe , and simple to use .
I have Vista , Win7 and Ubuntu 8 on my machine , each with its own drive , and while Vista is a tad bit better than Ubuntu , Win7 runs rings around both , and is easier to use than either .
I do not think I have enjoyed using Windows this much since NT first got the Win95 shell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chrome OS focusing on speed, simplicity and security does not imply Windows cannot deliver in these areas.
It's just an alternative operating system, and has yet to prove itself.
The summary sound rather, well, dumb.Oh, don't beat around the bush.
I'll come right out and say it.
I think Windows 7 is fast, safe, and simple to use.
I have Vista, Win7 and Ubuntu 8 on my machine, each with its own drive, and while Vista is a tad bit better than Ubuntu, Win7 runs rings around both, and is easier to use than either.
I do not think I have enjoyed using Windows this much since NT first got the Win95 shell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28628033</id>
	<title>Wow, Google Story again.</title>
	<author>thomasw\_lrd</author>
	<datestamp>1247046120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow another Google story. They now have phones, their own web browser.  I can't wait till the Google Playbox 720 comes out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow another Google story .
They now have phones , their own web browser .
I ca n't wait till the Google Playbox 720 comes out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow another Google story.
They now have phones, their own web browser.
I can't wait till the Google Playbox 720 comes out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621961</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>TooMuchToDo</author>
	<datestamp>1247067060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Windows 7 is also going to cost $100-$200 USD. Google Chrome OS is going to be.....free.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows 7 is also going to cost $ 100- $ 200 USD .
Google Chrome OS is going to be.....free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows 7 is also going to cost $100-$200 USD.
Google Chrome OS is going to be.....free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620123</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623761</id>
	<title>Thin clients</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247073420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bought a "thin client" Linux widget in late 90's for my parents.  They liked it because they could just get on the web which was all Mom really needed.   With a dialup modem built-in but it was good enough at th time, I recall it was a black box that booted from CD-ROM can't even recall the name now.  So there is nothing new here.  What was one recent iteration of this old idea of a fancy dumb terminal I think it was Zonbu?  And in the many years that I've been hearing some new &amp; improved thin-client web device was going to eat everyone's lunch and wow the world it still hasn't happened.  I sincerely doubt that the GoogleBox will succeed any more deeply than the Audrey or any preceding attempt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bought a " thin client " Linux widget in late 90 's for my parents .
They liked it because they could just get on the web which was all Mom really needed .
With a dialup modem built-in but it was good enough at th time , I recall it was a black box that booted from CD-ROM ca n't even recall the name now .
So there is nothing new here .
What was one recent iteration of this old idea of a fancy dumb terminal I think it was Zonbu ?
And in the many years that I 've been hearing some new &amp; improved thin-client web device was going to eat everyone 's lunch and wow the world it still has n't happened .
I sincerely doubt that the GoogleBox will succeed any more deeply than the Audrey or any preceding attempt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bought a "thin client" Linux widget in late 90's for my parents.
They liked it because they could just get on the web which was all Mom really needed.
With a dialup modem built-in but it was good enough at th time, I recall it was a black box that booted from CD-ROM can't even recall the name now.
So there is nothing new here.
What was one recent iteration of this old idea of a fancy dumb terminal I think it was Zonbu?
And in the many years that I've been hearing some new &amp; improved thin-client web device was going to eat everyone's lunch and wow the world it still hasn't happened.
I sincerely doubt that the GoogleBox will succeed any more deeply than the Audrey or any preceding attempt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28624051</id>
	<title>Computers are *communication* devices</title>
	<author>Geof</author>
	<datestamp>1247074500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back when telephones were new, no-one quite knew what they were <em>for</em>.  One company came up with a music service.  This was before radio, so the idea of piping music to your home was radical.  This may seem absurd to us now, but it isn't:  radio went the other way.  It is entirely possible that we could have built a world where we listened to high-fidelity music by phone, and spoke to our friends by radio.  Even in the early 20th century the phone companies didn't get it:  they ran campaigns trying dissuade housewives from chatting over the phone, believing that the technology was for Important business use (a few brief, high-cost calls instead of lots of cheap long ones).

</p><p>I remember when people though computers were giant calculators.  Then the computer became <em>personal</em>:  it could do your books, teach the kids arithmetic, and keep track of your recipes.  (Though why anyone you would want to keep their recipes in a computer was never clear).  The hardware companies tried to sell to everyone, but they weren't quite sure how to do it:  the truth is, most people had no real need for a computer.

</p><p>Computer technology isn't personal anymore.  It's social.  The PC is a phone, not a calculator.  That's why everyone needs one.  That's what driving development of the technology.  Ours is not the only possible path:  computers could have remained high-cost devices for use by individuals to produce things or do business.  But that was the path not taken.  This changes what computers <em>are</em>.

</p><p>To you, desktop applications may seem superior on the basis of their technical merits.  Fair enough.  Hollywood seems to see computers and the net as a new broadcast medium, like television, for which the current infrastructure has significant technical failings (privacy, QoS).  In their case I hope their vision is never realized.  But for many people, these visions are irrelevant.  No matter the quality or polish of the applications, no matter the convenience of video-on-demand, for them the technology is technically inferior if it does not fully support communication and social activity.  For them - and for me - the cobbled together infrastructure of the Web is far superior - <em>technically</em> superior - because for us it is above all a medium for communication.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back when telephones were new , no-one quite knew what they were for .
One company came up with a music service .
This was before radio , so the idea of piping music to your home was radical .
This may seem absurd to us now , but it is n't : radio went the other way .
It is entirely possible that we could have built a world where we listened to high-fidelity music by phone , and spoke to our friends by radio .
Even in the early 20th century the phone companies did n't get it : they ran campaigns trying dissuade housewives from chatting over the phone , believing that the technology was for Important business use ( a few brief , high-cost calls instead of lots of cheap long ones ) .
I remember when people though computers were giant calculators .
Then the computer became personal : it could do your books , teach the kids arithmetic , and keep track of your recipes .
( Though why anyone you would want to keep their recipes in a computer was never clear ) .
The hardware companies tried to sell to everyone , but they were n't quite sure how to do it : the truth is , most people had no real need for a computer .
Computer technology is n't personal anymore .
It 's social .
The PC is a phone , not a calculator .
That 's why everyone needs one .
That 's what driving development of the technology .
Ours is not the only possible path : computers could have remained high-cost devices for use by individuals to produce things or do business .
But that was the path not taken .
This changes what computers are .
To you , desktop applications may seem superior on the basis of their technical merits .
Fair enough .
Hollywood seems to see computers and the net as a new broadcast medium , like television , for which the current infrastructure has significant technical failings ( privacy , QoS ) .
In their case I hope their vision is never realized .
But for many people , these visions are irrelevant .
No matter the quality or polish of the applications , no matter the convenience of video-on-demand , for them the technology is technically inferior if it does not fully support communication and social activity .
For them - and for me - the cobbled together infrastructure of the Web is far superior - technically superior - because for us it is above all a medium for communication .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back when telephones were new, no-one quite knew what they were for.
One company came up with a music service.
This was before radio, so the idea of piping music to your home was radical.
This may seem absurd to us now, but it isn't:  radio went the other way.
It is entirely possible that we could have built a world where we listened to high-fidelity music by phone, and spoke to our friends by radio.
Even in the early 20th century the phone companies didn't get it:  they ran campaigns trying dissuade housewives from chatting over the phone, believing that the technology was for Important business use (a few brief, high-cost calls instead of lots of cheap long ones).
I remember when people though computers were giant calculators.
Then the computer became personal:  it could do your books, teach the kids arithmetic, and keep track of your recipes.
(Though why anyone you would want to keep their recipes in a computer was never clear).
The hardware companies tried to sell to everyone, but they weren't quite sure how to do it:  the truth is, most people had no real need for a computer.
Computer technology isn't personal anymore.
It's social.
The PC is a phone, not a calculator.
That's why everyone needs one.
That's what driving development of the technology.
Ours is not the only possible path:  computers could have remained high-cost devices for use by individuals to produce things or do business.
But that was the path not taken.
This changes what computers are.
To you, desktop applications may seem superior on the basis of their technical merits.
Fair enough.
Hollywood seems to see computers and the net as a new broadcast medium, like television, for which the current infrastructure has significant technical failings (privacy, QoS).
In their case I hope their vision is never realized.
But for many people, these visions are irrelevant.
No matter the quality or polish of the applications, no matter the convenience of video-on-demand, for them the technology is technically inferior if it does not fully support communication and social activity.
For them - and for me - the cobbled together infrastructure of the Web is far superior - technically superior - because for us it is above all a medium for communication.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28626045</id>
	<title>Re:Why would I want this?</title>
	<author>Dryth</author>
	<datestamp>1247081280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The target for Chrome OS seems to be Netbooks.</p><p>Most of the Linux vs. Windows discussion with respect to Netbooks tends to ignore how crummy the default Linux distros have been so far. The Eee PC as an example, it's distro is slow, ugly, and probably burned a lot of Asus' resources creating and maintaining it. More important, every non-system-management app could be implemented as an HTML5 application.</p><p>Savvy users would install their own distros, but they aren't the target audience for Chrome OS. The target audience is people wanting a simple internet machine, and the benefit for the rest of us is one more person independent of Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The target for Chrome OS seems to be Netbooks.Most of the Linux vs. Windows discussion with respect to Netbooks tends to ignore how crummy the default Linux distros have been so far .
The Eee PC as an example , it 's distro is slow , ugly , and probably burned a lot of Asus ' resources creating and maintaining it .
More important , every non-system-management app could be implemented as an HTML5 application.Savvy users would install their own distros , but they are n't the target audience for Chrome OS .
The target audience is people wanting a simple internet machine , and the benefit for the rest of us is one more person independent of Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The target for Chrome OS seems to be Netbooks.Most of the Linux vs. Windows discussion with respect to Netbooks tends to ignore how crummy the default Linux distros have been so far.
The Eee PC as an example, it's distro is slow, ugly, and probably burned a lot of Asus' resources creating and maintaining it.
More important, every non-system-management app could be implemented as an HTML5 application.Savvy users would install their own distros, but they aren't the target audience for Chrome OS.
The target audience is people wanting a simple internet machine, and the benefit for the rest of us is one more person independent of Microsoft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620605</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Artifakt</author>
	<datestamp>1247062140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any time anybody introduces any new product, it's safe to infer they think that the competition isn't unbeatably perfect for all customers. If I plant a grove of Winesap apples in an area where nobody is growing that particular variety, it's fair to assume I think there's demand, or my product will meet some as yet unmet need. That doesn't "kind of imply" that I think Gates Orchards is selling unsafe Golden Delicious or overly complicated Granny Smiths. The summary sounded as though somebody has an ax to grind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any time anybody introduces any new product , it 's safe to infer they think that the competition is n't unbeatably perfect for all customers .
If I plant a grove of Winesap apples in an area where nobody is growing that particular variety , it 's fair to assume I think there 's demand , or my product will meet some as yet unmet need .
That does n't " kind of imply " that I think Gates Orchards is selling unsafe Golden Delicious or overly complicated Granny Smiths .
The summary sounded as though somebody has an ax to grind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any time anybody introduces any new product, it's safe to infer they think that the competition isn't unbeatably perfect for all customers.
If I plant a grove of Winesap apples in an area where nobody is growing that particular variety, it's fair to assume I think there's demand, or my product will meet some as yet unmet need.
That doesn't "kind of imply" that I think Gates Orchards is selling unsafe Golden Delicious or overly complicated Granny Smiths.
The summary sounded as though somebody has an ax to grind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622139</id>
	<title>Re:This recession is a good time to strike</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247067660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Many have tried taking down Microsoft. All have failed. Perhaps Google is finally the David to slay Microsoft's Goliath. Perhaps not. Exciting times, these are.</i></p><p>So long as the battle is worded as black and white as you put it, no one will ever "slay" Microsoft, just as noone ever "slayed" IBM.  Microsoft and Windows will continue to exist for decades, just like IBM and the mainframe are still around.  The question will be what level of influence will they have.  Most likley, as the current generation of Windows-uber-alles type (the kind of people who think Windows XP on a netbook is a good idea, for example) die off, the newer generation who grew up with more choices like OS X and Linux will not have the attitude that a "real OS" has to have drive letters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many have tried taking down Microsoft .
All have failed .
Perhaps Google is finally the David to slay Microsoft 's Goliath .
Perhaps not .
Exciting times , these are.So long as the battle is worded as black and white as you put it , no one will ever " slay " Microsoft , just as noone ever " slayed " IBM .
Microsoft and Windows will continue to exist for decades , just like IBM and the mainframe are still around .
The question will be what level of influence will they have .
Most likley , as the current generation of Windows-uber-alles type ( the kind of people who think Windows XP on a netbook is a good idea , for example ) die off , the newer generation who grew up with more choices like OS X and Linux will not have the attitude that a " real OS " has to have drive letters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many have tried taking down Microsoft.
All have failed.
Perhaps Google is finally the David to slay Microsoft's Goliath.
Perhaps not.
Exciting times, these are.So long as the battle is worded as black and white as you put it, no one will ever "slay" Microsoft, just as noone ever "slayed" IBM.
Microsoft and Windows will continue to exist for decades, just like IBM and the mainframe are still around.
The question will be what level of influence will they have.
Most likley, as the current generation of Windows-uber-alles type (the kind of people who think Windows XP on a netbook is a good idea, for example) die off, the newer generation who grew up with more choices like OS X and Linux will not have the attitude that a "real OS" has to have drive letters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620199</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619995</id>
	<title>Chrome is the new Emacs?</title>
	<author>deadbeefcafe</author>
	<datestamp>1247059320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Chrome is a nice operating system, but it could do with a decent web browser.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Chrome is a nice operating system , but it could do with a decent web browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chrome is a nice operating system, but it could do with a decent web browser.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28626675</id>
	<title>Google needs Linux to do well.</title>
	<author>yossarianuk</author>
	<datestamp>1247083380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why would google want to fragment and damage Linux?
<br> <br>
They built their business using Linux and today Linux powers most of their infrastructure<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..<br> <br>
Fragmenting Linux/FOSS would in turn damage them also.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would google want to fragment and damage Linux ?
They built their business using Linux and today Linux powers most of their infrastructure . . Fragmenting Linux/FOSS would in turn damage them also .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would google want to fragment and damage Linux?
They built their business using Linux and today Linux powers most of their infrastructure .. 
Fragmenting Linux/FOSS would in turn damage them also.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620221</id>
	<title>Re:Uh huh.</title>
	<author>merrickm</author>
	<datestamp>1247060460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I imagine this is the sort of thing you'd try to sell not so much to individual users but to businesses- a business with a lot of employees on doing work on computers that has everything it needs its employees to do as a web app (or could have everything as a web app after, perhaps, paying Google to help them set that up) installs this thin-client OS on all their employee workstations and, assuming it works as well Google hopes, cuts down on IT headaches.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I imagine this is the sort of thing you 'd try to sell not so much to individual users but to businesses- a business with a lot of employees on doing work on computers that has everything it needs its employees to do as a web app ( or could have everything as a web app after , perhaps , paying Google to help them set that up ) installs this thin-client OS on all their employee workstations and , assuming it works as well Google hopes , cuts down on IT headaches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I imagine this is the sort of thing you'd try to sell not so much to individual users but to businesses- a business with a lot of employees on doing work on computers that has everything it needs its employees to do as a web app (or could have everything as a web app after, perhaps, paying Google to help them set that up) installs this thin-client OS on all their employee workstations and, assuming it works as well Google hopes, cuts down on IT headaches.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620493</id>
	<title>All Your data belong to us</title>
	<author>Shinatosh</author>
	<datestamp>1247061720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>-Will the Chrome OS licensed with the standard Google license, that was used "by mistake" in the Chrome browser first?</p><p>-Will the Chrome OS give me targeted ads on the desktop/taskbar/whatever based on my OS usage?</p><p>-Can one trust his/her computer and data to an OS/Web application system that was made by a company, primarily living off collecting/categorizing data?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>-Will the Chrome OS licensed with the standard Google license , that was used " by mistake " in the Chrome browser first ? -Will the Chrome OS give me targeted ads on the desktop/taskbar/whatever based on my OS usage ? -Can one trust his/her computer and data to an OS/Web application system that was made by a company , primarily living off collecting/categorizing data ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>-Will the Chrome OS licensed with the standard Google license, that was used "by mistake" in the Chrome browser first?-Will the Chrome OS give me targeted ads on the desktop/taskbar/whatever based on my OS usage?-Can one trust his/her computer and data to an OS/Web application system that was made by a company, primarily living off collecting/categorizing data?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28683451</id>
	<title>Re:The web is NOT the OS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247483100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Web apps work very well for certain applications, and Google has shown that they can push the limits with dynamic content, but that does not mean the web application is an appropriate model for every damned application.</p></div><p>Technology grows, changes, advances[...]</p></div><p>Everything becoming a web app... yeah, that's a change, and that's definitely major points under "growing"... not so much an advance, though.</p><p>(my apologies for intentionally misinterpreting what you said)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Web apps work very well for certain applications , and Google has shown that they can push the limits with dynamic content , but that does not mean the web application is an appropriate model for every damned application.Technology grows , changes , advances [ ... ] Everything becoming a web app... yeah , that 's a change , and that 's definitely major points under " growing " ... not so much an advance , though .
( my apologies for intentionally misinterpreting what you said )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Web apps work very well for certain applications, and Google has shown that they can push the limits with dynamic content, but that does not mean the web application is an appropriate model for every damned application.Technology grows, changes, advances[...]Everything becoming a web app... yeah, that's a change, and that's definitely major points under "growing"... not so much an advance, though.
(my apologies for intentionally misinterpreting what you said)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620363</id>
	<title>Re:The web is NOT the OS</title>
	<author>hagnat</author>
	<datestamp>1247061120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you know, no one is forcing you to use it or any other google app</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you know , no one is forcing you to use it or any other google app</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you know, no one is forcing you to use it or any other google app</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620099</id>
	<title>Re:Uh huh.</title>
	<author>suso</author>
	<datestamp>1247059860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do bring up an interesting point.  Getting people to try an operating system is hard and not for the timid.  I'm skeptical that Google would be able to get people to try it.  I mean they could do one of a few things:</p><ul><li>1) Sell some device that has the OS on it (would need to be cheap otherwise who would spend the money on it besides hobbyists)</li><li>2) Run it in a virtual machine and make it more as a program that you'd run on current OSes (so what are the benefits then?)</li><li>3) Try to get people to download it, install it alongside or replace their current OS (how many of us would really do this except to try it out as a toy and then go back to our other OS?  Open source has a community drive behind it that encourages people to help others install it, but commercial OSes don't really get that kind of momentum.)</li></ul><p>Seems to me like if Google wants this to work, they need to open source it.  And I think they will run into the argument of "I can already run web apps on my current system and it generally works ok. Plus I can run private apps if I want to."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do bring up an interesting point .
Getting people to try an operating system is hard and not for the timid .
I 'm skeptical that Google would be able to get people to try it .
I mean they could do one of a few things : 1 ) Sell some device that has the OS on it ( would need to be cheap otherwise who would spend the money on it besides hobbyists ) 2 ) Run it in a virtual machine and make it more as a program that you 'd run on current OSes ( so what are the benefits then ?
) 3 ) Try to get people to download it , install it alongside or replace their current OS ( how many of us would really do this except to try it out as a toy and then go back to our other OS ?
Open source has a community drive behind it that encourages people to help others install it , but commercial OSes do n't really get that kind of momentum .
) Seems to me like if Google wants this to work , they need to open source it .
And I think they will run into the argument of " I can already run web apps on my current system and it generally works ok. Plus I can run private apps if I want to .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do bring up an interesting point.
Getting people to try an operating system is hard and not for the timid.
I'm skeptical that Google would be able to get people to try it.
I mean they could do one of a few things:1) Sell some device that has the OS on it (would need to be cheap otherwise who would spend the money on it besides hobbyists)2) Run it in a virtual machine and make it more as a program that you'd run on current OSes (so what are the benefits then?
)3) Try to get people to download it, install it alongside or replace their current OS (how many of us would really do this except to try it out as a toy and then go back to our other OS?
Open source has a community drive behind it that encourages people to help others install it, but commercial OSes don't really get that kind of momentum.
)Seems to me like if Google wants this to work, they need to open source it.
And I think they will run into the argument of "I can already run web apps on my current system and it generally works ok. Plus I can run private apps if I want to.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623435</id>
	<title>Re:This recession is a good time to strike</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247072160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Deep pockets versus deeper pockets.  Google's market cap is $125b and Microsoft's is $200b.  Not long ago, the gap was larger.  Falling PC sales have taken a bite out of Microsoft's revenue.  They recently had their first down quarter in their history.</p><p>Microsoft still makes 4X the money Google does, though.  In 2008, Microsoft earned $17b in net income compared to Google's $4b.  Now, $4b is nothing to dismiss, especially when you're using and writing entirely free and open source software, but still, if Google has deep pockets, Microsoft's are even deeper.</p><p>See: <a href="http://www.google.com/finance?q=msft" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">MSFT</a> [google.com] and <a href="http://www.google.com/finance?q=goog" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">GOOG</a> [google.com] </p><p>.</p><p>Google is probably the only company in the world that can generate excitement about a new OS, and making an open platform will encourage software developers to write apps for it.  Hasn't that been one of the big complaints, the lack of software for Linux?</p><p>Many have tried taking down Microsoft.  All have failed.  Perhaps Google is finally the David to slay Microsoft's Goliath.  Perhaps not.  Exciting times, these are.</p></div><p> Microsoft is going after Google's windpipe (search revenue)  by releasing bing and now Google goes after Microsoft's  windpipe (OS or more importantly OS . hegemony). Exciting times indeed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Deep pockets versus deeper pockets .
Google 's market cap is $ 125b and Microsoft 's is $ 200b .
Not long ago , the gap was larger .
Falling PC sales have taken a bite out of Microsoft 's revenue .
They recently had their first down quarter in their history.Microsoft still makes 4X the money Google does , though .
In 2008 , Microsoft earned $ 17b in net income compared to Google 's $ 4b .
Now , $ 4b is nothing to dismiss , especially when you 're using and writing entirely free and open source software , but still , if Google has deep pockets , Microsoft 's are even deeper.See : MSFT [ google.com ] and GOOG [ google.com ] .Google is probably the only company in the world that can generate excitement about a new OS , and making an open platform will encourage software developers to write apps for it .
Has n't that been one of the big complaints , the lack of software for Linux ? Many have tried taking down Microsoft .
All have failed .
Perhaps Google is finally the David to slay Microsoft 's Goliath .
Perhaps not .
Exciting times , these are .
Microsoft is going after Google 's windpipe ( search revenue ) by releasing bing and now Google goes after Microsoft 's windpipe ( OS or more importantly OS .
hegemony ) . Exciting times indeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Deep pockets versus deeper pockets.
Google's market cap is $125b and Microsoft's is $200b.
Not long ago, the gap was larger.
Falling PC sales have taken a bite out of Microsoft's revenue.
They recently had their first down quarter in their history.Microsoft still makes 4X the money Google does, though.
In 2008, Microsoft earned $17b in net income compared to Google's $4b.
Now, $4b is nothing to dismiss, especially when you're using and writing entirely free and open source software, but still, if Google has deep pockets, Microsoft's are even deeper.See: MSFT [google.com] and GOOG [google.com] .Google is probably the only company in the world that can generate excitement about a new OS, and making an open platform will encourage software developers to write apps for it.
Hasn't that been one of the big complaints, the lack of software for Linux?Many have tried taking down Microsoft.
All have failed.
Perhaps Google is finally the David to slay Microsoft's Goliath.
Perhaps not.
Exciting times, these are.
Microsoft is going after Google's windpipe (search revenue)  by releasing bing and now Google goes after Microsoft's  windpipe (OS or more importantly OS .
hegemony). Exciting times indeed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620199</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620165</id>
	<title>Re:The web is NOT the OS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247060220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't need an OS named Ubuntu that is actually Linux with a lame web browser (firefox - pfffh) bolted on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't need an OS named Ubuntu that is actually Linux with a lame web browser ( firefox - pfffh ) bolted on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't need an OS named Ubuntu that is actually Linux with a lame web browser (firefox - pfffh) bolted on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28624291</id>
	<title>Javastation 2.0</title>
	<author>s2r</author>
	<datestamp>1247075340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All things have a sequel this sounds like javastation 2.0.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All things have a sequel this sounds like javastation 2.0 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All things have a sequel this sounds like javastation 2.0.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28649821</id>
	<title>Re:The web is NOT the OS</title>
	<author>mbowen</author>
	<datestamp>1247240940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The way to think of this is through the migration path of desktop applications. All you have to do is imagine that Chrome OS windowing is widgety, like Adobe Air with that level of cool look and feel. If it's that good it will be a huge success. That's because what Google understands is that software engineering is undergoing a revolution - people are developing applications at scale for the web, not for the IT data center, mainframes, or for desktop PCs.
<p>

Think about it. If you were going to start a software development company today that you expect to have a million customers, it would be nothing like Autocad, or Teradata - a company that expects to ship a set of CDs to an IT department to install on their servers with InstallShield. You wouldn't be debugging the software for different hardware configurations and writing a huge document about minimum hardware requirements. No. You would be thinking about owning your own private cloud, the software never leaves and you attract subscribers.
</p><p>


With desktop computing, you had your own disk and your own word processor. That was WordPerfect, you collaborate with no one. Remember? Then you got the read only web, you paid your ISP for disk and used Dreamweaver to FTP your words up to your provider. Then you began to collaborate and you used Cold Fusion to manage content in a shared space. Now there's TypePad where the entire process is hosted for a service fee. All the software and all the disk is not owned by you but you collaborate with everyone. Just like you don't own Slashdot's disk or software.


</p><p>
The point is that software development in the abstracted web allows you to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... well you already know this. So the right widgets to manage your cloud disk are all you need, that's what a cloud OS needs to have. The right tools to give you the ability to manage and control your space in the new paradigm. And for programmers a set of APIs that allow you to connect to massive cloud subsystems instead of things like USB peripherals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The way to think of this is through the migration path of desktop applications .
All you have to do is imagine that Chrome OS windowing is widgety , like Adobe Air with that level of cool look and feel .
If it 's that good it will be a huge success .
That 's because what Google understands is that software engineering is undergoing a revolution - people are developing applications at scale for the web , not for the IT data center , mainframes , or for desktop PCs .
Think about it .
If you were going to start a software development company today that you expect to have a million customers , it would be nothing like Autocad , or Teradata - a company that expects to ship a set of CDs to an IT department to install on their servers with InstallShield .
You would n't be debugging the software for different hardware configurations and writing a huge document about minimum hardware requirements .
No. You would be thinking about owning your own private cloud , the software never leaves and you attract subscribers .
With desktop computing , you had your own disk and your own word processor .
That was WordPerfect , you collaborate with no one .
Remember ? Then you got the read only web , you paid your ISP for disk and used Dreamweaver to FTP your words up to your provider .
Then you began to collaborate and you used Cold Fusion to manage content in a shared space .
Now there 's TypePad where the entire process is hosted for a service fee .
All the software and all the disk is not owned by you but you collaborate with everyone .
Just like you do n't own Slashdot 's disk or software .
The point is that software development in the abstracted web allows you to ... well you already know this .
So the right widgets to manage your cloud disk are all you need , that 's what a cloud OS needs to have .
The right tools to give you the ability to manage and control your space in the new paradigm .
And for programmers a set of APIs that allow you to connect to massive cloud subsystems instead of things like USB peripherals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The way to think of this is through the migration path of desktop applications.
All you have to do is imagine that Chrome OS windowing is widgety, like Adobe Air with that level of cool look and feel.
If it's that good it will be a huge success.
That's because what Google understands is that software engineering is undergoing a revolution - people are developing applications at scale for the web, not for the IT data center, mainframes, or for desktop PCs.
Think about it.
If you were going to start a software development company today that you expect to have a million customers, it would be nothing like Autocad, or Teradata - a company that expects to ship a set of CDs to an IT department to install on their servers with InstallShield.
You wouldn't be debugging the software for different hardware configurations and writing a huge document about minimum hardware requirements.
No. You would be thinking about owning your own private cloud, the software never leaves and you attract subscribers.
With desktop computing, you had your own disk and your own word processor.
That was WordPerfect, you collaborate with no one.
Remember? Then you got the read only web, you paid your ISP for disk and used Dreamweaver to FTP your words up to your provider.
Then you began to collaborate and you used Cold Fusion to manage content in a shared space.
Now there's TypePad where the entire process is hosted for a service fee.
All the software and all the disk is not owned by you but you collaborate with everyone.
Just like you don't own Slashdot's disk or software.
The point is that software development in the abstracted web allows you to ... well you already know this.
So the right widgets to manage your cloud disk are all you need, that's what a cloud OS needs to have.
The right tools to give you the ability to manage and control your space in the new paradigm.
And for programmers a set of APIs that allow you to connect to massive cloud subsystems instead of things like USB peripherals.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28626135</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1247081580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't even install Vista x64 without making my own install DVD with RAID drivers packaged in. I can't get any printer drivers period for my printers in x64 land.</p><p>Everything works for me out of the box in x64 land with Linux. I've been running 100\% x64 in Linux for about 6 years now with no hassles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't even install Vista x64 without making my own install DVD with RAID drivers packaged in .
I ca n't get any printer drivers period for my printers in x64 land.Everything works for me out of the box in x64 land with Linux .
I 've been running 100 \ % x64 in Linux for about 6 years now with no hassles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't even install Vista x64 without making my own install DVD with RAID drivers packaged in.
I can't get any printer drivers period for my printers in x64 land.Everything works for me out of the box in x64 land with Linux.
I've been running 100\% x64 in Linux for about 6 years now with no hassles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620255</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>stlthVector</author>
	<datestamp>1247060640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In less than one year Google made Chrome faster and more secure than Microsoft was able to make IE since they bought NCSA Mosaic many years ago.  Firefox is a great browser but it's still not as fast as Chrome and Chrome has been proven more secure - I'm sure due to its application virtualization technology.</p><p>It wouldn't surprise me if Google has a better (faster, more secure, does what most people need) OS than Microsoft or Apple in a year or two.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In less than one year Google made Chrome faster and more secure than Microsoft was able to make IE since they bought NCSA Mosaic many years ago .
Firefox is a great browser but it 's still not as fast as Chrome and Chrome has been proven more secure - I 'm sure due to its application virtualization technology.It would n't surprise me if Google has a better ( faster , more secure , does what most people need ) OS than Microsoft or Apple in a year or two .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In less than one year Google made Chrome faster and more secure than Microsoft was able to make IE since they bought NCSA Mosaic many years ago.
Firefox is a great browser but it's still not as fast as Chrome and Chrome has been proven more secure - I'm sure due to its application virtualization technology.It wouldn't surprise me if Google has a better (faster, more secure, does what most people need) OS than Microsoft or Apple in a year or two.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28624739</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>VGPowerlord</author>
	<datestamp>1247076780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It really does help if you have your 64-bit drivers downloaded in advance.</p><p>I know I did.</p><p>Then again, my home machine is an HP machine, and it had a 64-bit drivers download page.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It really does help if you have your 64-bit drivers downloaded in advance.I know I did.Then again , my home machine is an HP machine , and it had a 64-bit drivers download page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It really does help if you have your 64-bit drivers downloaded in advance.I know I did.Then again, my home machine is an HP machine, and it had a 64-bit drivers download page.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28632957</id>
	<title>I for one,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247081280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I, for one, welcome our new overlords</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I , for one , welcome our new overlords</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, for one, welcome our new overlords</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28624499</id>
	<title>Re:OS == Browser</title>
	<author>Jeema</author>
	<datestamp>1247076000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes but existing computers already offer this functionality.  A browser-OS would offer less functionality than a current OS.  And let's be honest, it isn't that hard to start up Windows/MacOS/Linux and open a browser, so the usability issue is mostly a non-starter.
<br> <br>
So getting back to the main point: why would anyone want a computer that offers distinctly less functionality than their existing one?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes but existing computers already offer this functionality .
A browser-OS would offer less functionality than a current OS .
And let 's be honest , it is n't that hard to start up Windows/MacOS/Linux and open a browser , so the usability issue is mostly a non-starter .
So getting back to the main point : why would anyone want a computer that offers distinctly less functionality than their existing one ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes but existing computers already offer this functionality.
A browser-OS would offer less functionality than a current OS.
And let's be honest, it isn't that hard to start up Windows/MacOS/Linux and open a browser, so the usability issue is mostly a non-starter.
So getting back to the main point: why would anyone want a computer that offers distinctly less functionality than their existing one?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620889</id>
	<title>worst. security. idea. EVER.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247063100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, lemme get this straight. Every time WebKit, or an application that runs WebKit, gets exploited... there's a security hole in my OS?</p><p>Not to mention, this is supposed to be Chrome running on Linux? And Google doesn't even have a Linux release of Chrome?</p><p>I haven't used Chrome because of the aforementioned fact (if it isn't downloadable from Google's Chrome page it's not an official Google Chrome release) but if it's anything like Firefox I know what I can expect: random crashes, memory leaks, incompatible plug-ins, late security releases... Hmm. I wonder what other OS this sounds like?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , lem me get this straight .
Every time WebKit , or an application that runs WebKit , gets exploited... there 's a security hole in my OS ? Not to mention , this is supposed to be Chrome running on Linux ?
And Google does n't even have a Linux release of Chrome ? I have n't used Chrome because of the aforementioned fact ( if it is n't downloadable from Google 's Chrome page it 's not an official Google Chrome release ) but if it 's anything like Firefox I know what I can expect : random crashes , memory leaks , incompatible plug-ins , late security releases... Hmm. I wonder what other OS this sounds like ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, lemme get this straight.
Every time WebKit, or an application that runs WebKit, gets exploited... there's a security hole in my OS?Not to mention, this is supposed to be Chrome running on Linux?
And Google doesn't even have a Linux release of Chrome?I haven't used Chrome because of the aforementioned fact (if it isn't downloadable from Google's Chrome page it's not an official Google Chrome release) but if it's anything like Firefox I know what I can expect: random crashes, memory leaks, incompatible plug-ins, late security releases... Hmm. I wonder what other OS this sounds like?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621071</id>
	<title>The real question is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247063820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...when will it come out of Beta?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...when will it come out of Beta ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...when will it come out of Beta?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622113</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>darkmeridian</author>
	<datestamp>1247067600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The x64 versions of Windows Vista and 7 have beat the pants off of any Linux desktop that I've used. I want to try x64 Linux, but the driver support isn't there yet. For all the doubters out there, get four gigs of RAM and install x64 Windows Vista or 7 RC1. You'd be very surprised at how quick, stable, and snappy the experience is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The x64 versions of Windows Vista and 7 have beat the pants off of any Linux desktop that I 've used .
I want to try x64 Linux , but the driver support is n't there yet .
For all the doubters out there , get four gigs of RAM and install x64 Windows Vista or 7 RC1 .
You 'd be very surprised at how quick , stable , and snappy the experience is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The x64 versions of Windows Vista and 7 have beat the pants off of any Linux desktop that I've used.
I want to try x64 Linux, but the driver support isn't there yet.
For all the doubters out there, get four gigs of RAM and install x64 Windows Vista or 7 RC1.
You'd be very surprised at how quick, stable, and snappy the experience is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620123</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28631743</id>
	<title>Re:Drivers?</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1247068500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Biggest problem in the linux world is the weak support from vendors for their video hardware and the not so up to date X11.</p></div></blockquote><p>

This is debatable, up until you get to the enterprise world and pay A$8000 for an entry level IBM X3650, then you have superior Linux drivers. Linux is a server OS so the best drivers are still for server hardware. Only in the last 4 years has Linux seriously looked at the desktop, compare Linux from 2004 to 2008 to Windows from 1985 to 1989 and you'll find Linux has moved faster.</p><blockquote><div><p>Windows in vmware on linux feels snappier then native linux.</p></div> </blockquote><p>

Quantity snappier? You specify that it's a feeling, is it similar to the feeling that someone has walked over my grave? Can we have a point of reference please.<br> <br>

VMware server under Linux is far superior then VMware server under Windows, 15\% more transactions per second (approx) for a VM running Win2K3 and MSSQL05. Of course VMwares own ESXi Server blows them both out of the water. All of my tests are done on server hardware.<br> <br>

When we are talking about driver support, the vendor is the one at blame not the OS. Intel did the best thing it could for Linux video support with its integrated GPU's, they open sourced the drivers. Ubuntu 9.04 runs faster then XP on my old lappy (Cel 1.6, 1 GB, Intel 915 IGM) and a lot faster then Vista basic on my new lappy (C2D 2.1, 2GB, Intel X4500) with Compiz turned on. ATI is in the process of opening their GPU Spec's.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Biggest problem in the linux world is the weak support from vendors for their video hardware and the not so up to date X11 .
This is debatable , up until you get to the enterprise world and pay A $ 8000 for an entry level IBM X3650 , then you have superior Linux drivers .
Linux is a server OS so the best drivers are still for server hardware .
Only in the last 4 years has Linux seriously looked at the desktop , compare Linux from 2004 to 2008 to Windows from 1985 to 1989 and you 'll find Linux has moved faster.Windows in vmware on linux feels snappier then native linux .
Quantity snappier ?
You specify that it 's a feeling , is it similar to the feeling that someone has walked over my grave ?
Can we have a point of reference please .
VMware server under Linux is far superior then VMware server under Windows , 15 \ % more transactions per second ( approx ) for a VM running Win2K3 and MSSQL05 .
Of course VMwares own ESXi Server blows them both out of the water .
All of my tests are done on server hardware .
When we are talking about driver support , the vendor is the one at blame not the OS .
Intel did the best thing it could for Linux video support with its integrated GPU 's , they open sourced the drivers .
Ubuntu 9.04 runs faster then XP on my old lappy ( Cel 1.6 , 1 GB , Intel 915 IGM ) and a lot faster then Vista basic on my new lappy ( C2D 2.1 , 2GB , Intel X4500 ) with Compiz turned on .
ATI is in the process of opening their GPU Spec 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Biggest problem in the linux world is the weak support from vendors for their video hardware and the not so up to date X11.
This is debatable, up until you get to the enterprise world and pay A$8000 for an entry level IBM X3650, then you have superior Linux drivers.
Linux is a server OS so the best drivers are still for server hardware.
Only in the last 4 years has Linux seriously looked at the desktop, compare Linux from 2004 to 2008 to Windows from 1985 to 1989 and you'll find Linux has moved faster.Windows in vmware on linux feels snappier then native linux.
Quantity snappier?
You specify that it's a feeling, is it similar to the feeling that someone has walked over my grave?
Can we have a point of reference please.
VMware server under Linux is far superior then VMware server under Windows, 15\% more transactions per second (approx) for a VM running Win2K3 and MSSQL05.
Of course VMwares own ESXi Server blows them both out of the water.
All of my tests are done on server hardware.
When we are talking about driver support, the vendor is the one at blame not the OS.
Intel did the best thing it could for Linux video support with its integrated GPU's, they open sourced the drivers.
Ubuntu 9.04 runs faster then XP on my old lappy (Cel 1.6, 1 GB, Intel 915 IGM) and a lot faster then Vista basic on my new lappy (C2D 2.1, 2GB, Intel X4500) with Compiz turned on.
ATI is in the process of opening their GPU Spec's.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620465</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28633981</id>
	<title>Re:Uh huh.</title>
	<author>tiggertaebo</author>
	<datestamp>1247137080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>..to browse the web in complete security.</p> </div><p>this, and this from TFA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And as we did for the Google Chrome browser, we are going back to the basics and completely redesigning the underlying security architecture of the OS so that users don't have to deal with viruses, malware and security updates. It should just work.</p></div><p>are quite scary really. Are Google honestly claiming that the whole thing is (and will remain) completely invulnerable to any attacks? And people are believing this? Yeah.... Good luck with that.</p><p>I'm not denying that it will probably be fairly secure out of the box - after all the less functionality something offers the easier it is to secure, but to claim "complete security" is just foolish.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>..to browse the web in complete security .
this , and this from TFA : And as we did for the Google Chrome browser , we are going back to the basics and completely redesigning the underlying security architecture of the OS so that users do n't have to deal with viruses , malware and security updates .
It should just work.are quite scary really .
Are Google honestly claiming that the whole thing is ( and will remain ) completely invulnerable to any attacks ?
And people are believing this ?
Yeah.... Good luck with that.I 'm not denying that it will probably be fairly secure out of the box - after all the less functionality something offers the easier it is to secure , but to claim " complete security " is just foolish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ..to browse the web in complete security.
this, and this from TFA:And as we did for the Google Chrome browser, we are going back to the basics and completely redesigning the underlying security architecture of the OS so that users don't have to deal with viruses, malware and security updates.
It should just work.are quite scary really.
Are Google honestly claiming that the whole thing is (and will remain) completely invulnerable to any attacks?
And people are believing this?
Yeah.... Good luck with that.I'm not denying that it will probably be fairly secure out of the box - after all the less functionality something offers the easier it is to secure, but to claim "complete security" is just foolish.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620741</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621345</id>
	<title>Web-based admin night be nice</title>
	<author>rklrkl</author>
	<datestamp>1247064600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whilst I'm a bit surprised they won't be using X (effectively eliminating any chance of running local existing X applications that won't have a good Web equivalent for a long time), one thing that might be quite nice is if the OS did all its system administration (and user configuration) via a Web interface. This would mean shipping a Web server (possibly with an embedded scripting language - python, PHP, whatever) - though that could be fired up on demand I guess - and has the added benefit that remote admin becomes a doddle too.</p><p>Personally, I think Google have to push this to OEMs to bundle with netbooks - Linux has never had a "fully blown" OEM push (Dell and HP horribly hide their Linux offerings) before and pre-installation is the only way Windows users will ever migrate to another OS, since 95\% of Windows users have never installed an OS before.</p><p>Google's brand awareness is massive and if the OS is slick enough for Joe Public and bundled virtually for free with netbooks from big OEMs, then this might just take off. The inability to run any local pre-existing graphical apps (Windows, Linux or Mac) might be a bit of downer though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whilst I 'm a bit surprised they wo n't be using X ( effectively eliminating any chance of running local existing X applications that wo n't have a good Web equivalent for a long time ) , one thing that might be quite nice is if the OS did all its system administration ( and user configuration ) via a Web interface .
This would mean shipping a Web server ( possibly with an embedded scripting language - python , PHP , whatever ) - though that could be fired up on demand I guess - and has the added benefit that remote admin becomes a doddle too.Personally , I think Google have to push this to OEMs to bundle with netbooks - Linux has never had a " fully blown " OEM push ( Dell and HP horribly hide their Linux offerings ) before and pre-installation is the only way Windows users will ever migrate to another OS , since 95 \ % of Windows users have never installed an OS before.Google 's brand awareness is massive and if the OS is slick enough for Joe Public and bundled virtually for free with netbooks from big OEMs , then this might just take off .
The inability to run any local pre-existing graphical apps ( Windows , Linux or Mac ) might be a bit of downer though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whilst I'm a bit surprised they won't be using X (effectively eliminating any chance of running local existing X applications that won't have a good Web equivalent for a long time), one thing that might be quite nice is if the OS did all its system administration (and user configuration) via a Web interface.
This would mean shipping a Web server (possibly with an embedded scripting language - python, PHP, whatever) - though that could be fired up on demand I guess - and has the added benefit that remote admin becomes a doddle too.Personally, I think Google have to push this to OEMs to bundle with netbooks - Linux has never had a "fully blown" OEM push (Dell and HP horribly hide their Linux offerings) before and pre-installation is the only way Windows users will ever migrate to another OS, since 95\% of Windows users have never installed an OS before.Google's brand awareness is massive and if the OS is slick enough for Joe Public and bundled virtually for free with netbooks from big OEMs, then this might just take off.
The inability to run any local pre-existing graphical apps (Windows, Linux or Mac) might be a bit of downer though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623311</id>
	<title>Re:The web is NOT the OS</title>
	<author>The End Of Days</author>
	<datestamp>1247071740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Is everyone seriously impressed that we're creating stateless GUIs to remote applications by scripting marked-up text inside increasingly bloated and resource-hogging third-party applications? Is this the future? Really?</p></div></blockquote><p>No, this is the present.  You can tell because it's happening now as opposed to some point after now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is everyone seriously impressed that we 're creating stateless GUIs to remote applications by scripting marked-up text inside increasingly bloated and resource-hogging third-party applications ?
Is this the future ?
Really ? No , this is the present .
You can tell because it 's happening now as opposed to some point after now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is everyone seriously impressed that we're creating stateless GUIs to remote applications by scripting marked-up text inside increasingly bloated and resource-hogging third-party applications?
Is this the future?
Really?No, this is the present.
You can tell because it's happening now as opposed to some point after now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28626075</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1247081400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am running Windows 7 on a Phenom X2 quad-core box and it pretty slow.</p><p>I admit I like the new taskbar a whole lot. Instead of just useless thumbnails for multiple explorer windows, now I can mouse over them to "peek" at them.</p><p>That being said, I've had a lot of trouble with 7. And at the end of the day, people still call me to clear spyware and viruses off their Vista boxes all the time. I am extremely reticent to call any version of Windows secure until I see real world evidence of a Windows box on the internet with real world use that is pretty secure. Sure I can install third-party anti-spyware or anti-virus apps, browse with Firefox, disable apps, use a HOSTS file, etc. to minimize risk. But I'm talking about Windows out of the box.</p><p>As for comparisons with Ubuntu, I'm the minority that loathes Gnome and loathes Ubuntu. I too prefer Windows to Ubuntu. KDE on openSUSE is another story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am running Windows 7 on a Phenom X2 quad-core box and it pretty slow.I admit I like the new taskbar a whole lot .
Instead of just useless thumbnails for multiple explorer windows , now I can mouse over them to " peek " at them.That being said , I 've had a lot of trouble with 7 .
And at the end of the day , people still call me to clear spyware and viruses off their Vista boxes all the time .
I am extremely reticent to call any version of Windows secure until I see real world evidence of a Windows box on the internet with real world use that is pretty secure .
Sure I can install third-party anti-spyware or anti-virus apps , browse with Firefox , disable apps , use a HOSTS file , etc .
to minimize risk .
But I 'm talking about Windows out of the box.As for comparisons with Ubuntu , I 'm the minority that loathes Gnome and loathes Ubuntu .
I too prefer Windows to Ubuntu .
KDE on openSUSE is another story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am running Windows 7 on a Phenom X2 quad-core box and it pretty slow.I admit I like the new taskbar a whole lot.
Instead of just useless thumbnails for multiple explorer windows, now I can mouse over them to "peek" at them.That being said, I've had a lot of trouble with 7.
And at the end of the day, people still call me to clear spyware and viruses off their Vista boxes all the time.
I am extremely reticent to call any version of Windows secure until I see real world evidence of a Windows box on the internet with real world use that is pretty secure.
Sure I can install third-party anti-spyware or anti-virus apps, browse with Firefox, disable apps, use a HOSTS file, etc.
to minimize risk.
But I'm talking about Windows out of the box.As for comparisons with Ubuntu, I'm the minority that loathes Gnome and loathes Ubuntu.
I too prefer Windows to Ubuntu.
KDE on openSUSE is another story.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620123</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28736975</id>
	<title>Re:Why would I want this?</title>
	<author>Guy Harris</author>
	<datestamp>1247837760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The one company to really take a unixish kernel and succeed with it? Apple.  Many of your arguments could have been made about OS X and the BSD kernel it is based on.  I suspect this will be similarly non recognizable to the other OS's using its kernel, and probably have a similar port ability.  Taking all the obvious unix-like parts out of it really is required to get your grandmother to use it on her netbook.  Think about explaining<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/lib<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc to grandma.  It requires a complete rewrite.</p></div><p>You are aware that Mac OS X has<nobr> <wbr></nobr><tt>/usr</tt> and<nobr> <wbr></nobr><tt>/etc</tt> and, although it doesn't have<nobr> <wbr></nobr><tt>/lib</tt>, it <em>does</em> have<nobr> <wbr></nobr><tt>/usr/lib</tt>, right?  And, yes, they <em>are</em> used by parts of the system.  (Heck, just about every process on the system uses<nobr> <wbr></nobr><tt>/usr/lib/libSystem.dylib</tt>.)
</p><p>OS X didn't "[take] all the obvious unix-like parts out of [Darwin]", it just didn't require the average user to know about them.  (Is Ubuntu "relegated to a niche" because it hasn't done as good a job as OS X does at that?  Or is there more to it than that?)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The one company to really take a unixish kernel and succeed with it ?
Apple. Many of your arguments could have been made about OS X and the BSD kernel it is based on .
I suspect this will be similarly non recognizable to the other OS 's using its kernel , and probably have a similar port ability .
Taking all the obvious unix-like parts out of it really is required to get your grandmother to use it on her netbook .
Think about explaining /usr /lib /etc to grandma .
It requires a complete rewrite.You are aware that Mac OS X has /usr and /etc and , although it does n't have /lib , it does have /usr/lib , right ?
And , yes , they are used by parts of the system .
( Heck , just about every process on the system uses /usr/lib/libSystem.dylib .
) OS X did n't " [ take ] all the obvious unix-like parts out of [ Darwin ] " , it just did n't require the average user to know about them .
( Is Ubuntu " relegated to a niche " because it has n't done as good a job as OS X does at that ?
Or is there more to it than that ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The one company to really take a unixish kernel and succeed with it?
Apple.  Many of your arguments could have been made about OS X and the BSD kernel it is based on.
I suspect this will be similarly non recognizable to the other OS's using its kernel, and probably have a similar port ability.
Taking all the obvious unix-like parts out of it really is required to get your grandmother to use it on her netbook.
Think about explaining /usr /lib /etc to grandma.
It requires a complete rewrite.You are aware that Mac OS X has /usr and /etc and, although it doesn't have /lib, it does have /usr/lib, right?
And, yes, they are used by parts of the system.
(Heck, just about every process on the system uses /usr/lib/libSystem.dylib.
)
OS X didn't "[take] all the obvious unix-like parts out of [Darwin]", it just didn't require the average user to know about them.
(Is Ubuntu "relegated to a niche" because it hasn't done as good a job as OS X does at that?
Or is there more to it than that?
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621063</id>
	<title>Re:Can't fight the status quo</title>
	<author>yossarianuk</author>
	<datestamp>1247063820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm very glad they have chosen Linux for the kernel - They will be able to spend much more time effort on the UI/desktop and I'm sure they will put their own patches in the kernel<br> <br> Why recreate something that exists now? <br> <br>
Creating a OS kernel from scratch is not an easy task - if it was everybody would do it .</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm very glad they have chosen Linux for the kernel - They will be able to spend much more time effort on the UI/desktop and I 'm sure they will put their own patches in the kernel Why recreate something that exists now ?
Creating a OS kernel from scratch is not an easy task - if it was everybody would do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm very glad they have chosen Linux for the kernel - They will be able to spend much more time effort on the UI/desktop and I'm sure they will put their own patches in the kernel  Why recreate something that exists now?
Creating a OS kernel from scratch is not an easy task - if it was everybody would do it .</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620545</id>
	<title>Re:The web is NOT the OS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247061960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why don't men wear hats anymore? Damn kids. No respect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't men wear hats anymore ?
Damn kids .
No respect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't men wear hats anymore?
Damn kids.
No respect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28624549</id>
	<title>The biggest problem with my linux netbook</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247076180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm hoping Google Chrome OS solves my biggest annoyance with my linux netbook(an EEE PC with ubuntu netbook remix): network startup time. It's great that my machine can wake in 15 seconds, but that does me no good if it can't get an IP address from my wireless network for about 2 minutes. In this respect, windows was much better, it took about 30-40 seconds to wake and get an IP address. It's also possible that Canonical will solve the problem for me, but I consider it unusable right now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm hoping Google Chrome OS solves my biggest annoyance with my linux netbook ( an EEE PC with ubuntu netbook remix ) : network startup time .
It 's great that my machine can wake in 15 seconds , but that does me no good if it ca n't get an IP address from my wireless network for about 2 minutes .
In this respect , windows was much better , it took about 30-40 seconds to wake and get an IP address .
It 's also possible that Canonical will solve the problem for me , but I consider it unusable right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm hoping Google Chrome OS solves my biggest annoyance with my linux netbook(an EEE PC with ubuntu netbook remix): network startup time.
It's great that my machine can wake in 15 seconds, but that does me no good if it can't get an IP address from my wireless network for about 2 minutes.
In this respect, windows was much better, it took about 30-40 seconds to wake and get an IP address.
It's also possible that Canonical will solve the problem for me, but I consider it unusable right now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28643679</id>
	<title>You all missing the point......</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247139840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NOT:</p><p>"Is your computer broken? Just stop by your local Starbucks or Staples and pick up your free copy of Google OS. After making room on your hard drive, it will load a new and secure operating system that will allow you to browse the internet, play Solitaire, and write letters with it's included office suite. Once it's loaded, you'll have the option of recovering data and backing it up online for free so you'll never have to worry about data loss again."</p><p>BUT:</p><p>"Is your computer broken? Just stop by your local electronics store and buy a brand new netbook for $200, with everything included. Works first time. Log onto GMail and away you go"</p><p>Netbooks (low end) are incredibly cheap, and Google is aiming to fill the "throw away" niche. 10 years ago cell phones were expensive, now you get them with cereal packets. Mark my words: for simple web browsing / editing / email, this will be the killer app. Yes, of course you will still need a brute PC to do you CAD / accounting / complex documentation / video demuxing / $FAV\_APP; but this is a DIFFERENT MARKET.</p><p>Bring it on, I can't wait.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NOT : " Is your computer broken ?
Just stop by your local Starbucks or Staples and pick up your free copy of Google OS .
After making room on your hard drive , it will load a new and secure operating system that will allow you to browse the internet , play Solitaire , and write letters with it 's included office suite .
Once it 's loaded , you 'll have the option of recovering data and backing it up online for free so you 'll never have to worry about data loss again .
" BUT : " Is your computer broken ?
Just stop by your local electronics store and buy a brand new netbook for $ 200 , with everything included .
Works first time .
Log onto GMail and away you go " Netbooks ( low end ) are incredibly cheap , and Google is aiming to fill the " throw away " niche .
10 years ago cell phones were expensive , now you get them with cereal packets .
Mark my words : for simple web browsing / editing / email , this will be the killer app .
Yes , of course you will still need a brute PC to do you CAD / accounting / complex documentation / video demuxing / $ FAV \ _APP ; but this is a DIFFERENT MARKET.Bring it on , I ca n't wait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NOT:"Is your computer broken?
Just stop by your local Starbucks or Staples and pick up your free copy of Google OS.
After making room on your hard drive, it will load a new and secure operating system that will allow you to browse the internet, play Solitaire, and write letters with it's included office suite.
Once it's loaded, you'll have the option of recovering data and backing it up online for free so you'll never have to worry about data loss again.
"BUT:"Is your computer broken?
Just stop by your local electronics store and buy a brand new netbook for $200, with everything included.
Works first time.
Log onto GMail and away you go"Netbooks (low end) are incredibly cheap, and Google is aiming to fill the "throw away" niche.
10 years ago cell phones were expensive, now you get them with cereal packets.
Mark my words: for simple web browsing / editing / email, this will be the killer app.
Yes, of course you will still need a brute PC to do you CAD / accounting / complex documentation / video demuxing / $FAV\_APP; but this is a DIFFERENT MARKET.Bring it on, I can't wait.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28633753</id>
	<title>Excellent news</title>
	<author>dugeen</author>
	<datestamp>1247134860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If Google plan to have this installed on netbooks, it will actually have to have reliable hardware support, which is the one thing I've been looking for from Linux all these years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Google plan to have this installed on netbooks , it will actually have to have reliable hardware support , which is the one thing I 've been looking for from Linux all these years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Google plan to have this installed on netbooks, it will actually have to have reliable hardware support, which is the one thing I've been looking for from Linux all these years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28639341</id>
	<title>Re:Fear</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1247165400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I wouldn't run an OS from a company who's business is knowing your consumer preferences</p></div></blockquote><p>You might not, but, given that (while less successful than Google) Microsoft also sells ads (including search ads) and collects consumer preference data and uses it, the vast majority of the computing market obviously <i>will</i>. So I don't see that as big barrier to Google succeeding in the OS market.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't run an OS from a company who 's business is knowing your consumer preferencesYou might not , but , given that ( while less successful than Google ) Microsoft also sells ads ( including search ads ) and collects consumer preference data and uses it , the vast majority of the computing market obviously will .
So I do n't see that as big barrier to Google succeeding in the OS market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't run an OS from a company who's business is knowing your consumer preferencesYou might not, but, given that (while less successful than Google) Microsoft also sells ads (including search ads) and collects consumer preference data and uses it, the vast majority of the computing market obviously will.
So I don't see that as big barrier to Google succeeding in the OS market.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619981</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28627241</id>
	<title>Re:Uh huh.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247085540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that the entire concept of dual booting breaks the minds of non-techies, who must at best use rote memorization to master the sequence of steps required to navigate it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that the entire concept of dual booting breaks the minds of non-techies , who must at best use rote memorization to master the sequence of steps required to navigate it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that the entire concept of dual booting breaks the minds of non-techies, who must at best use rote memorization to master the sequence of steps required to navigate it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620741</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622409</id>
	<title>X all about it</title>
	<author>yogi192</author>
	<datestamp>1247068560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/X\_Window\_System" title="wikia.com" rel="nofollow">http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/X\_Window\_System</a> [wikia.com]
ready up and RUP</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/X \ _Window \ _System [ wikia.com ] ready up and RUP</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/X\_Window\_System [wikia.com]
ready up and RUP</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623977</id>
	<title>A new windowing system...</title>
	<author>knarf</author>
	<datestamp>1247074140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...now it would not surprise me if this  'new windowing system' turns out to be not much more than the <a href="http://code.google.com/p/skia/" title="google.com">skia</a> [google.com] graphics library with mostly <a href="http://code.google.com/p/chromium/" title="google.com">Chromium</a> [google.com] on top. Google makes a big deal about running their browser-based apps off-line, they create a browser which has javascript execution speed as one of its main selling points, they integrate their <a href="http://gears.google.com/" title="google.com">gears</a> [google.com] 'framework' in their browser... There are many examples of browser-based interfaces out there on the web, go and look for them to get an idea of what is possible. Writing a 'window manager' using HTML/CSS/Javascript is dead simple...</p><p>And of course it all makes sense. They plan to target two processor architectures, x86 and ARM. That would mean all apps for this OS need to be compiled for those two architectures, unless... the apps are written in some higher-level language... like javascript... using gears...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...now it would not surprise me if this 'new windowing system ' turns out to be not much more than the skia [ google.com ] graphics library with mostly Chromium [ google.com ] on top .
Google makes a big deal about running their browser-based apps off-line , they create a browser which has javascript execution speed as one of its main selling points , they integrate their gears [ google.com ] 'framework ' in their browser... There are many examples of browser-based interfaces out there on the web , go and look for them to get an idea of what is possible .
Writing a 'window manager ' using HTML/CSS/Javascript is dead simple...And of course it all makes sense .
They plan to target two processor architectures , x86 and ARM .
That would mean all apps for this OS need to be compiled for those two architectures , unless... the apps are written in some higher-level language... like javascript... using gears.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...now it would not surprise me if this  'new windowing system' turns out to be not much more than the skia [google.com] graphics library with mostly Chromium [google.com] on top.
Google makes a big deal about running their browser-based apps off-line, they create a browser which has javascript execution speed as one of its main selling points, they integrate their gears [google.com] 'framework' in their browser... There are many examples of browser-based interfaces out there on the web, go and look for them to get an idea of what is possible.
Writing a 'window manager' using HTML/CSS/Javascript is dead simple...And of course it all makes sense.
They plan to target two processor architectures, x86 and ARM.
That would mean all apps for this OS need to be compiled for those two architectures, unless... the apps are written in some higher-level language... like javascript... using gears...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622905</id>
	<title>Why is it always Win vs. Linux?????</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247070180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If Chrome simply ends up another polished Linux distro (albeit backed by a mammoth company), will we really be any better off than today.  Why is this OS discussion always reach the lowest common denominator of Windows vs. Linux (I'm lumping OS X in here too)?  Why can't some innovative startup out there put forth a viable 3rd alternative that truly turns the computing world upside down?  People are disenchanted with M$, intimidated by Linux and don't want the proprietary platform of OS X. <br> The market is ripe for something truly fresh.  It does not sound like Chrome is the answer.  I don't care of it is open source or not.  I want it to be cheap, fast, easy to use, and stable.  My guess is that anyone coming up with something like this would end up in court with M$ at some point over some sort of M$ application support built into the OS for cross-platform compatibility.  The whole OS world just really seems stale.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Chrome simply ends up another polished Linux distro ( albeit backed by a mammoth company ) , will we really be any better off than today .
Why is this OS discussion always reach the lowest common denominator of Windows vs. Linux ( I 'm lumping OS X in here too ) ?
Why ca n't some innovative startup out there put forth a viable 3rd alternative that truly turns the computing world upside down ?
People are disenchanted with M $ , intimidated by Linux and do n't want the proprietary platform of OS X. The market is ripe for something truly fresh .
It does not sound like Chrome is the answer .
I do n't care of it is open source or not .
I want it to be cheap , fast , easy to use , and stable .
My guess is that anyone coming up with something like this would end up in court with M $ at some point over some sort of M $ application support built into the OS for cross-platform compatibility .
The whole OS world just really seems stale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Chrome simply ends up another polished Linux distro (albeit backed by a mammoth company), will we really be any better off than today.
Why is this OS discussion always reach the lowest common denominator of Windows vs. Linux (I'm lumping OS X in here too)?
Why can't some innovative startup out there put forth a viable 3rd alternative that truly turns the computing world upside down?
People are disenchanted with M$, intimidated by Linux and don't want the proprietary platform of OS X.  The market is ripe for something truly fresh.
It does not sound like Chrome is the answer.
I don't care of it is open source or not.
I want it to be cheap, fast, easy to use, and stable.
My guess is that anyone coming up with something like this would end up in court with M$ at some point over some sort of M$ application support built into the OS for cross-platform compatibility.
The whole OS world just really seems stale.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622163</id>
	<title>Hurray!!!!</title>
	<author>oblivionboy</author>
	<datestamp>1247067780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yet another Linux Distro! Just what we've all been waiting for!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet another Linux Distro !
Just what we 've all been waiting for !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet another Linux Distro!
Just what we've all been waiting for!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622237</id>
	<title>Re:Yawn, another distro?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247067960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's funny how every newcomer to linux automatically assumes that the objective of linux (as if linux is one entity) is to "beat windows". FYI: different linux distributions have wildly differing objectives. That's part of the appeal of linux.</p><p>I've been a linux user for going on 12 years now, and never once did it cross my mind that I was trying to "beat windows". I use linux because I prefer it, not because I'm waging war.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's funny how every newcomer to linux automatically assumes that the objective of linux ( as if linux is one entity ) is to " beat windows " .
FYI : different linux distributions have wildly differing objectives .
That 's part of the appeal of linux.I 've been a linux user for going on 12 years now , and never once did it cross my mind that I was trying to " beat windows " .
I use linux because I prefer it , not because I 'm waging war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's funny how every newcomer to linux automatically assumes that the objective of linux (as if linux is one entity) is to "beat windows".
FYI: different linux distributions have wildly differing objectives.
That's part of the appeal of linux.I've been a linux user for going on 12 years now, and never once did it cross my mind that I was trying to "beat windows".
I use linux because I prefer it, not because I'm waging war.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623287</id>
	<title>Re:Stop Google before the damage is too serious</title>
	<author>quixote9</author>
	<datestamp>1247071620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Google is using open source to try to close the internet</i> <br> <br>
Exactly.<br> <br>

Google is in the business of selling ads.  Tracking clicks to sell ads, storing data to mine so they can sell ads, and on and on and on. <br> <br>

If you think that's harmless and don't care.  Fine.  It should be your choice to be owned by Google.  But what I don't like is that I can see a future where it is <b>not</b> my choice not to be owned by them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is using open source to try to close the internet Exactly .
Google is in the business of selling ads .
Tracking clicks to sell ads , storing data to mine so they can sell ads , and on and on and on .
If you think that 's harmless and do n't care .
Fine. It should be your choice to be owned by Google .
But what I do n't like is that I can see a future where it is not my choice not to be owned by them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is using open source to try to close the internet  
Exactly.
Google is in the business of selling ads.
Tracking clicks to sell ads, storing data to mine so they can sell ads, and on and on and on.
If you think that's harmless and don't care.
Fine.  It should be your choice to be owned by Google.
But what I don't like is that I can see a future where it is not my choice not to be owned by them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620891</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622303</id>
	<title>Re:Yawn, another distro?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247068260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, 2010 will be the year of Linux on the desktop?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , 2010 will be the year of Linux on the desktop ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, 2010 will be the year of Linux on the desktop?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625439</id>
	<title>Re:Fear</title>
	<author>MBGMorden</author>
	<datestamp>1247079120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's ok.  As long as a solid FOSS foundation (Ie, apps) is provided I'm sure that we can get some good apps built by third party FOSS developers.  Firefox and/or OpenOffice.org already run snappier and better on Windows or Mac compared to on Linux.  If Google can provide an open source Linux-based platform with the polish of Mac OS X then it could do wonders for the FOSS world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's ok. As long as a solid FOSS foundation ( Ie , apps ) is provided I 'm sure that we can get some good apps built by third party FOSS developers .
Firefox and/or OpenOffice.org already run snappier and better on Windows or Mac compared to on Linux .
If Google can provide an open source Linux-based platform with the polish of Mac OS X then it could do wonders for the FOSS world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's ok.  As long as a solid FOSS foundation (Ie, apps) is provided I'm sure that we can get some good apps built by third party FOSS developers.
Firefox and/or OpenOffice.org already run snappier and better on Windows or Mac compared to on Linux.
If Google can provide an open source Linux-based platform with the polish of Mac OS X then it could do wonders for the FOSS world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28624235</id>
	<title>Re:Web Is (not) The Platform</title>
	<author>claytongulick</author>
	<datestamp>1247075160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree with you for HTML, but IMHO Adobe Flex is one of the nicest languages/platforms I've ever developed in. I love it, I'd prefer to do all my UI work with it now and far into the future.
<br> <br>
I know slashdot tends to dislike flash, but Flex is the best platform for developing business app UI's I've ever seen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you for HTML , but IMHO Adobe Flex is one of the nicest languages/platforms I 've ever developed in .
I love it , I 'd prefer to do all my UI work with it now and far into the future .
I know slashdot tends to dislike flash , but Flex is the best platform for developing business app UI 's I 've ever seen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you for HTML, but IMHO Adobe Flex is one of the nicest languages/platforms I've ever developed in.
I love it, I'd prefer to do all my UI work with it now and far into the future.
I know slashdot tends to dislike flash, but Flex is the best platform for developing business app UI's I've ever seen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620625</id>
	<title>Re:Yawn, another distro?</title>
	<author>Ephemeriis</author>
	<datestamp>1247062200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How is this going to be different from other Linux distros and associated GUI revamp projects that have sprung up promising "we're going to be better than Windows! Really!" over the years?</p></div><p>Google.</p><p>Google has the manpower, money, mindset, motivation, and brand-name to potentially make this work.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this going to be different from other Linux distros and associated GUI revamp projects that have sprung up promising " we 're going to be better than Windows !
Really ! " over the years ? Google.Google has the manpower , money , mindset , motivation , and brand-name to potentially make this work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this going to be different from other Linux distros and associated GUI revamp projects that have sprung up promising "we're going to be better than Windows!
Really!" over the years?Google.Google has the manpower, money, mindset, motivation, and brand-name to potentially make this work.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28633151</id>
	<title>Re:The web is NOT the OS</title>
	<author>Allicorn</author>
	<datestamp>1247171100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm certain it needs an Internet connection, yes, though really the PC that doesn't these days is a rare beastie.</p><p>I suspect that Gears ( <a href="http://gears.google.com/" title="google.com">http://gears.google.com/</a> [google.com] ) or similar is to be used to allow DHTML applications delivered over the web to persist and function when the network connection is removed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm certain it needs an Internet connection , yes , though really the PC that does n't these days is a rare beastie.I suspect that Gears ( http : //gears.google.com/ [ google.com ] ) or similar is to be used to allow DHTML applications delivered over the web to persist and function when the network connection is removed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm certain it needs an Internet connection, yes, though really the PC that doesn't these days is a rare beastie.I suspect that Gears ( http://gears.google.com/ [google.com] ) or similar is to be used to allow DHTML applications delivered over the web to persist and function when the network connection is removed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620357</id>
	<title>Re:Yawn, another distro?</title>
	<author>neumayr</author>
	<datestamp>1247061060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hm, market force?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hm , market force ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hm, market force?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620725</id>
	<title>Re:Huh? (Double HUH?)</title>
	<author>Anomylous Howard</author>
	<datestamp>1247062560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>MS bought NCSA Mosaic? -- I don't think so!
They bought Spyglass and renamed it IE after. Mozilla and Fire Fox are the direct descendants of Mosaic via Netscape.</htmltext>
<tokenext>MS bought NCSA Mosaic ?
-- I do n't think so !
They bought Spyglass and renamed it IE after .
Mozilla and Fire Fox are the direct descendants of Mosaic via Netscape .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS bought NCSA Mosaic?
-- I don't think so!
They bought Spyglass and renamed it IE after.
Mozilla and Fire Fox are the direct descendants of Mosaic via Netscape.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622655</id>
	<title>Re:This recession is a good time to strike</title>
	<author>Itchyeyes</author>
	<datestamp>1247069340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This brings up the point of how exactly does Google pay for this OS?  I think a lot of people are assuming that since everything else from Google is free, so will this be.  But shareholders may not be so keen on Google giving away something that consumes as much resources as an OS, and users aren't going to be eager to adopt an OS that's constantly pushing ads into their face.  The easy way out would be to only distribute it to OEMs who aren't going to balk at paying for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This brings up the point of how exactly does Google pay for this OS ?
I think a lot of people are assuming that since everything else from Google is free , so will this be .
But shareholders may not be so keen on Google giving away something that consumes as much resources as an OS , and users are n't going to be eager to adopt an OS that 's constantly pushing ads into their face .
The easy way out would be to only distribute it to OEMs who are n't going to balk at paying for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This brings up the point of how exactly does Google pay for this OS?
I think a lot of people are assuming that since everything else from Google is free, so will this be.
But shareholders may not be so keen on Google giving away something that consumes as much resources as an OS, and users aren't going to be eager to adopt an OS that's constantly pushing ads into their face.
The easy way out would be to only distribute it to OEMs who aren't going to balk at paying for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620199</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620579</id>
	<title>Web Is (not) The Platform</title>
	<author>TheNinjaroach</author>
	<datestamp>1247062020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Speaking as a web developer, I think it sucks as a platform.  HTML is not a very efficient way to generate output, supporting various DOM and Javascript implementations is a real pain and there are so many cases where a web application is not the best tool for the job.<br> <br>That being said, I certainly do believe it's the best way to deliver information and applications to our customers, but most of our internal business processes and applications would be better to do without.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking as a web developer , I think it sucks as a platform .
HTML is not a very efficient way to generate output , supporting various DOM and Javascript implementations is a real pain and there are so many cases where a web application is not the best tool for the job .
That being said , I certainly do believe it 's the best way to deliver information and applications to our customers , but most of our internal business processes and applications would be better to do without .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking as a web developer, I think it sucks as a platform.
HTML is not a very efficient way to generate output, supporting various DOM and Javascript implementations is a real pain and there are so many cases where a web application is not the best tool for the job.
That being said, I certainly do believe it's the best way to deliver information and applications to our customers, but most of our internal business processes and applications would be better to do without.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621237</id>
	<title>Re:Google should not screw this up...</title>
	<author>Real1tyCzech</author>
	<datestamp>1247064180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Too right.</p><p>This is the *web* people.  Scripting is in it''s element here.  Why is there no macro/scripting support in Google Docs?  The formatting options are extremely limited and it's slow as heck.  They *really* need to work on this space before they even consider building an OS around their apps.</p><p>Gmail was amazing.  Blew everything else out of the water and forced them all to play catch-up.   Docs?  No such luck.  They *really* (I cannot stress this enough) need to make their Google Docs as revolutionary as Gmail was before they should even devote a moments time to this.</p><p>They started out right: Get *everyone* using your products (GMail).  They needed to take over most commonly used apps...and everyone uses mail.  If they could have continued this by adding a mind-blowing chat, doc, spreadsheet, etc, they could  have had 90\% of what most users do with their PC's locked up.  Power it through their own browser "desktop" and once that sinks in, no-one willc are what powers the "desktop" anymore.</p><p>*sigh*</p><p>Wish they'd done it right.  They could have snuck up on OSX/Windows without so much as a whimper and then effortlessly replaced them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too right.This is the * web * people .
Scripting is in it ' 's element here .
Why is there no macro/scripting support in Google Docs ?
The formatting options are extremely limited and it 's slow as heck .
They * really * need to work on this space before they even consider building an OS around their apps.Gmail was amazing .
Blew everything else out of the water and forced them all to play catch-up .
Docs ? No such luck .
They * really * ( I can not stress this enough ) need to make their Google Docs as revolutionary as Gmail was before they should even devote a moments time to this.They started out right : Get * everyone * using your products ( GMail ) .
They needed to take over most commonly used apps...and everyone uses mail .
If they could have continued this by adding a mind-blowing chat , doc , spreadsheet , etc , they could have had 90 \ % of what most users do with their PC 's locked up .
Power it through their own browser " desktop " and once that sinks in , no-one willc are what powers the " desktop " anymore .
* sigh * Wish they 'd done it right .
They could have snuck up on OSX/Windows without so much as a whimper and then effortlessly replaced them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too right.This is the *web* people.
Scripting is in it''s element here.
Why is there no macro/scripting support in Google Docs?
The formatting options are extremely limited and it's slow as heck.
They *really* need to work on this space before they even consider building an OS around their apps.Gmail was amazing.
Blew everything else out of the water and forced them all to play catch-up.
Docs?  No such luck.
They *really* (I cannot stress this enough) need to make their Google Docs as revolutionary as Gmail was before they should even devote a moments time to this.They started out right: Get *everyone* using your products (GMail).
They needed to take over most commonly used apps...and everyone uses mail.
If they could have continued this by adding a mind-blowing chat, doc, spreadsheet, etc, they could  have had 90\% of what most users do with their PC's locked up.
Power it through their own browser "desktop" and once that sinks in, no-one willc are what powers the "desktop" anymore.
*sigh*Wish they'd done it right.
They could have snuck up on OSX/Windows without so much as a whimper and then effortlessly replaced them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620005</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621995</id>
	<title>Linux Kernel + Google Cloud</title>
	<author>shirque</author>
	<datestamp>1247067180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Already been done:
</p><p> <a href="http://www.thinkgos.com/" title="thinkgos.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.thinkgos.com/</a> [thinkgos.com] </p><p> <a href="http://toastytech.com/guis/gos.html" title="toastytech.com" rel="nofollow">http://toastytech.com/guis/gos.html</a> [toastytech.com] </p><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GOS\_(operating\_system)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GOS\_(operating\_system)</a> [wikipedia.org] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Already been done : http : //www.thinkgos.com/ [ thinkgos.com ] http : //toastytech.com/guis/gos.html [ toastytech.com ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GOS \ _ ( operating \ _system ) [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Already been done:
 http://www.thinkgos.com/ [thinkgos.com]  http://toastytech.com/guis/gos.html [toastytech.com]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GOS\_(operating\_system) [wikipedia.org] </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625103</id>
	<title>Rest Easy!</title>
	<author>ThatsNotPudding</author>
	<datestamp>1247077980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They promise to only inspect every <i>other</i> packet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They promise to only inspect every other packet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They promise to only inspect every other packet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28644619</id>
	<title>From Google Gears to ChromeOS</title>
	<author>hartur</author>
	<datestamp>1247145240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When you look back at Google Gears, you realize how important this piece will be for the next ChromeOS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you look back at Google Gears , you realize how important this piece will be for the next ChromeOS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you look back at Google Gears, you realize how important this piece will be for the next ChromeOS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620923</id>
	<title>Re:Fear</title>
	<author>cinnamon colbert</author>
	<datestamp>1247063280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>thanks<br>I think we should have a pool as to when google becomes the new borg for the majority of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.ers - I'm guessing may 2010</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>thanksI think we should have a pool as to when google becomes the new borg for the majority of /.ers - I 'm guessing may 2010</tokentext>
<sentencetext>thanksI think we should have a pool as to when google becomes the new borg for the majority of /.ers - I'm guessing may 2010</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619981</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623389</id>
	<title>Re:The web is NOT the OS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247072040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like it or not, Google is making real what Sun could only dream about when they proposed their whole Java-based system with thin client systems (or even diskless workstations) accessing server-based applications. Only instead of Java, it's Linux and AJAX.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like it or not , Google is making real what Sun could only dream about when they proposed their whole Java-based system with thin client systems ( or even diskless workstations ) accessing server-based applications .
Only instead of Java , it 's Linux and AJAX .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like it or not, Google is making real what Sun could only dream about when they proposed their whole Java-based system with thin client systems (or even diskless workstations) accessing server-based applications.
Only instead of Java, it's Linux and AJAX.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28627187</id>
	<title>Re:The web is NOT the OS</title>
	<author>cstacy</author>
	<datestamp>1247085300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>The web is not the OS. The web is...the web.</p></div><p>The web isn't what it used to be.</p><p>Technology grows, changes, advances - this is especially true in IT.  If you go back a dozen years or so there was no way in hell you'd be able to run a word processor through a web page.</p></div><p>In the field of computers, technology also forgets things and loses major winning things, and goes off on weird stupid side-trips.
</p><p>
The GUIs in browsers, and their performance, is not suitable for a wide class of applications.  I am familar with Google apps and am not especially impressed by them.
</p><p>
Distributed storage and other web services are nice, but should not necessarily be tied to a conventional browser.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The web is not the OS .
The web is...the web.The web is n't what it used to be.Technology grows , changes , advances - this is especially true in IT .
If you go back a dozen years or so there was no way in hell you 'd be able to run a word processor through a web page.In the field of computers , technology also forgets things and loses major winning things , and goes off on weird stupid side-trips .
The GUIs in browsers , and their performance , is not suitable for a wide class of applications .
I am familar with Google apps and am not especially impressed by them .
Distributed storage and other web services are nice , but should not necessarily be tied to a conventional browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The web is not the OS.
The web is...the web.The web isn't what it used to be.Technology grows, changes, advances - this is especially true in IT.
If you go back a dozen years or so there was no way in hell you'd be able to run a word processor through a web page.In the field of computers, technology also forgets things and loses major winning things, and goes off on weird stupid side-trips.
The GUIs in browsers, and their performance, is not suitable for a wide class of applications.
I am familar with Google apps and am not especially impressed by them.
Distributed storage and other web services are nice, but should not necessarily be tied to a conventional browser.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621913</id>
	<title>Re:The web is NOT the OS</title>
	<author>norminator</author>
	<datestamp>1247066880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>These days it seems absurd to talk about running Photoshop or AutoCAD through a web browser... But in another dozen years it may make perfect sense.</p></div><p>I don't think you have to wait a dozen years... I'm sure that none of these options are equal to the full power of Photoshop right now, but with the direction things are going, it could happen before too many years go by:

<a href="http://lifehacker.com/5307419/five-best-online-image-editors" title="lifehacker.com">http://lifehacker.com/5307419/five-best-online-image-editors</a> [lifehacker.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These days it seems absurd to talk about running Photoshop or AutoCAD through a web browser... But in another dozen years it may make perfect sense.I do n't think you have to wait a dozen years... I 'm sure that none of these options are equal to the full power of Photoshop right now , but with the direction things are going , it could happen before too many years go by : http : //lifehacker.com/5307419/five-best-online-image-editors [ lifehacker.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These days it seems absurd to talk about running Photoshop or AutoCAD through a web browser... But in another dozen years it may make perfect sense.I don't think you have to wait a dozen years... I'm sure that none of these options are equal to the full power of Photoshop right now, but with the direction things are going, it could happen before too many years go by:

http://lifehacker.com/5307419/five-best-online-image-editors [lifehacker.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620741</id>
	<title>Re:Uh huh.</title>
	<author>TropicalCoder</author>
	<datestamp>1247062620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>3) Try to get people to download it, install it alongside or replace their current OS (how many of us would really do this except to try it out as a toy and then go back to our other OS?</p></div></blockquote><p>It has a lot more potential on the desktop than you suggest. Imagine dual booting between Windows and the Google Chrome OS. You could boot nearly instantly into the Google OS to browse the web in complete security. The Google OS could also run from a VM for secure web browsing as well. Windoz users becoming routinely p0wned will be a thing of the past.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>3 ) Try to get people to download it , install it alongside or replace their current OS ( how many of us would really do this except to try it out as a toy and then go back to our other OS ? It has a lot more potential on the desktop than you suggest .
Imagine dual booting between Windows and the Google Chrome OS .
You could boot nearly instantly into the Google OS to browse the web in complete security .
The Google OS could also run from a VM for secure web browsing as well .
Windoz users becoming routinely p0wned will be a thing of the past .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3) Try to get people to download it, install it alongside or replace their current OS (how many of us would really do this except to try it out as a toy and then go back to our other OS?It has a lot more potential on the desktop than you suggest.
Imagine dual booting between Windows and the Google Chrome OS.
You could boot nearly instantly into the Google OS to browse the web in complete security.
The Google OS could also run from a VM for secure web browsing as well.
Windoz users becoming routinely p0wned will be a thing of the past.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623893</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247073840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am curious about this, was it specifically stated that it will be free?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am curious about this , was it specifically stated that it will be free ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am curious about this, was it specifically stated that it will be free?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622845</id>
	<title>Re:Automatically or automagically?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247070060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>From what I hear, there is this little prerequisite called "internet access".</p></div><p>Not necessarily. With the offline DB feature of HTML 5 and Google Gears, you could get quite a lot done without internet access.</p><p>Besides, this is intended for *net*books. I think internet access is a given.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I hear , there is this little prerequisite called " internet access " .Not necessarily .
With the offline DB feature of HTML 5 and Google Gears , you could get quite a lot done without internet access.Besides , this is intended for * net * books .
I think internet access is a given .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I hear, there is this little prerequisite called "internet access".Not necessarily.
With the offline DB feature of HTML 5 and Google Gears, you could get quite a lot done without internet access.Besides, this is intended for *net*books.
I think internet access is a given.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623713</id>
	<title>Re:The web is NOT the OS</title>
	<author>bonch</author>
	<datestamp>1247073240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The web isn't what it used to be. The days when the web was mostly a collection of static pages are long gone. The web is dynamic, interactive, and user-driven. The web is email, ftp, live video, instant messaging, word processing, photo galleries, forums, flash, games, television... You get the idea.</p></div></blockquote><p>Ftp, forums, and photo galleries count as static content and have been around for over a decade on the web.  The rest is all that you'll really get with web apps--videos, some basic text chatting, and Flash games which don't really count.  The web is a platform that is just now getting a video tag, for crying out loud.</p><p>The most ridiculous part of the web app movement is that we have operating systems with standard APIs, yet web app developers think the whole world should abandon that for a platform that has no standard APIs where you have to re-implement every UI from scratch on every website.  It's like going back to the DOS era.  It's cute that some people think it's so amazing to have an inbox that updates in real-time when we've had that for decades in native e-mail clients.  So what did we gain?  A removal of privacy and an inability to browse offline because our email is stored on someone else's server.  Congrats.</p><p>There are some "web apps" that don't even make sense.  Quake Live plays through a browser, but you have to run a plugin installer anyway, so why not just make it a native app instead of forcing it to rely on a non-related application?  The web is extremely limited as an application platform and a victim of hype.  It's like the people who insisted that online music rental services were going to beat iTunes--at some point, people want to own something that can be used offline on their local machines.  Not everyone wants to be tied to "the cloud" (ugh, another ridiculous media buzzword).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The web is n't what it used to be .
The days when the web was mostly a collection of static pages are long gone .
The web is dynamic , interactive , and user-driven .
The web is email , ftp , live video , instant messaging , word processing , photo galleries , forums , flash , games , television... You get the idea.Ftp , forums , and photo galleries count as static content and have been around for over a decade on the web .
The rest is all that you 'll really get with web apps--videos , some basic text chatting , and Flash games which do n't really count .
The web is a platform that is just now getting a video tag , for crying out loud.The most ridiculous part of the web app movement is that we have operating systems with standard APIs , yet web app developers think the whole world should abandon that for a platform that has no standard APIs where you have to re-implement every UI from scratch on every website .
It 's like going back to the DOS era .
It 's cute that some people think it 's so amazing to have an inbox that updates in real-time when we 've had that for decades in native e-mail clients .
So what did we gain ?
A removal of privacy and an inability to browse offline because our email is stored on someone else 's server .
Congrats.There are some " web apps " that do n't even make sense .
Quake Live plays through a browser , but you have to run a plugin installer anyway , so why not just make it a native app instead of forcing it to rely on a non-related application ?
The web is extremely limited as an application platform and a victim of hype .
It 's like the people who insisted that online music rental services were going to beat iTunes--at some point , people want to own something that can be used offline on their local machines .
Not everyone wants to be tied to " the cloud " ( ugh , another ridiculous media buzzword ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The web isn't what it used to be.
The days when the web was mostly a collection of static pages are long gone.
The web is dynamic, interactive, and user-driven.
The web is email, ftp, live video, instant messaging, word processing, photo galleries, forums, flash, games, television... You get the idea.Ftp, forums, and photo galleries count as static content and have been around for over a decade on the web.
The rest is all that you'll really get with web apps--videos, some basic text chatting, and Flash games which don't really count.
The web is a platform that is just now getting a video tag, for crying out loud.The most ridiculous part of the web app movement is that we have operating systems with standard APIs, yet web app developers think the whole world should abandon that for a platform that has no standard APIs where you have to re-implement every UI from scratch on every website.
It's like going back to the DOS era.
It's cute that some people think it's so amazing to have an inbox that updates in real-time when we've had that for decades in native e-mail clients.
So what did we gain?
A removal of privacy and an inability to browse offline because our email is stored on someone else's server.
Congrats.There are some "web apps" that don't even make sense.
Quake Live plays through a browser, but you have to run a plugin installer anyway, so why not just make it a native app instead of forcing it to rely on a non-related application?
The web is extremely limited as an application platform and a victim of hype.
It's like the people who insisted that online music rental services were going to beat iTunes--at some point, people want to own something that can be used offline on their local machines.
Not everyone wants to be tied to "the cloud" (ugh, another ridiculous media buzzword).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621253</id>
	<title>Chrome OS = Posix + Google Gears</title>
	<author>roger\_pasky</author>
	<datestamp>1247064240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't mind the UI thing. I guess this is a movement to ease the implementation of web applications in the Google sense, I mean, Google Apps.<br>
<br>
This could yield a new "write()" function with an URL instead a FileID and something like that. Bye bye XX century, hello (XXI century) world<br>
<br>
If so, those are really good news.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't mind the UI thing .
I guess this is a movement to ease the implementation of web applications in the Google sense , I mean , Google Apps .
This could yield a new " write ( ) " function with an URL instead a FileID and something like that .
Bye bye XX century , hello ( XXI century ) world If so , those are really good news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't mind the UI thing.
I guess this is a movement to ease the implementation of web applications in the Google sense, I mean, Google Apps.
This could yield a new "write()" function with an URL instead a FileID and something like that.
Bye bye XX century, hello (XXI century) world

If so, those are really good news.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28624613</id>
	<title>Re:Fast web OS needed!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247076420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The choice is clear, sluggish native apps are becoming obsolete, and lightweight online apps are becoming more and more reliable.</i></p><p>Native apps are SLUGGISH compared to we apps? Man, that made me laugh for a few seconds. Thanks!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The choice is clear , sluggish native apps are becoming obsolete , and lightweight online apps are becoming more and more reliable.Native apps are SLUGGISH compared to we apps ?
Man , that made me laugh for a few seconds .
Thanks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The choice is clear, sluggish native apps are becoming obsolete, and lightweight online apps are becoming more and more reliable.Native apps are SLUGGISH compared to we apps?
Man, that made me laugh for a few seconds.
Thanks!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625695</id>
	<title>Microsoft 2.0</title>
	<author>slyborg</author>
	<datestamp>1247080080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's funny, but the New Google, with its penchant for Being Evil(tm) with regards to collecting consumer data in every nook and cranny of your online life, Embracing and Extending in browsers, and now OSes starts to look a lot like Imperial Redmond during the days its legions strong-armed PC manufacturers the world over and crushed competitors like eggs, usually by buying them.</p><p>Any single entity with this much market power is bad. That power will be abused for profit, it's how the world works. So I, for one, do not welcome our new Google overlords.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's funny , but the New Google , with its penchant for Being Evil ( tm ) with regards to collecting consumer data in every nook and cranny of your online life , Embracing and Extending in browsers , and now OSes starts to look a lot like Imperial Redmond during the days its legions strong-armed PC manufacturers the world over and crushed competitors like eggs , usually by buying them.Any single entity with this much market power is bad .
That power will be abused for profit , it 's how the world works .
So I , for one , do not welcome our new Google overlords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's funny, but the New Google, with its penchant for Being Evil(tm) with regards to collecting consumer data in every nook and cranny of your online life, Embracing and Extending in browsers, and now OSes starts to look a lot like Imperial Redmond during the days its legions strong-armed PC manufacturers the world over and crushed competitors like eggs, usually by buying them.Any single entity with this much market power is bad.
That power will be abused for profit, it's how the world works.
So I, for one, do not welcome our new Google overlords.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620737</id>
	<title>Epic Fail</title>
	<author>Saint Stephen</author>
	<datestamp>1247062620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's see now.</p><p>It's Linux!  And you can only run the web browser on it!  Because, you know, if all you want to do is surf the web, and the stuff you need to do all runs on the web, then it doesn't matter if it's Linux or Windows!</p><p>Oh, wait, you mean I can't do that?  Oh, um, how do I get updates on this thing?  Oh, um, that doesn't work quite the way I want it to.</p><p>Can I return this thing and get one that works like a normal computer I'm used to?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see now.It 's Linux !
And you can only run the web browser on it !
Because , you know , if all you want to do is surf the web , and the stuff you need to do all runs on the web , then it does n't matter if it 's Linux or Windows ! Oh , wait , you mean I ca n't do that ?
Oh , um , how do I get updates on this thing ?
Oh , um , that does n't work quite the way I want it to.Can I return this thing and get one that works like a normal computer I 'm used to ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see now.It's Linux!
And you can only run the web browser on it!
Because, you know, if all you want to do is surf the web, and the stuff you need to do all runs on the web, then it doesn't matter if it's Linux or Windows!Oh, wait, you mean I can't do that?
Oh, um, how do I get updates on this thing?
Oh, um, that doesn't work quite the way I want it to.Can I return this thing and get one that works like a normal computer I'm used to?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28631851</id>
	<title>Goodbye Operating Systems</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247069160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
  We are all screwed.  As bandwidth increases, and people become continually used to having their data online (gmail, gdocs, dropbox) there is no more need for operating systems besides the kernel and windowing.  Every application that you need can run from something that access the internet, and obtains data necessary to render the app from the cloud.  All data will be in the cloud.  Even now, in its early stages, there are impressive photoshop-like online apps with good responsiveness.  The last bastion that still needs an OS is games, but that limitation too is <a href="http://www.joystiq.com/2009/07/01/dave-perry-gives-first-video-tour-of-gaikai/#continued" title="joystiq.com" rel="nofollow">dead</a> [joystiq.com].   I can't think of any application that isn't amenable to cloud computing: incremental data updates, with potentially a lot of computation being done in memory (games and whatnot) or on large amounts of data (movie encoding), all of which gets done on the hosting side.  Only the updates of progress and GUI need to be sent to the client.  The only exception I can think of is processing of large amounts of data that is local (for example, plugging in a camcorder and wanting to encode the movie).  In that case, the data will be sent to the cloud if bandwidth is high enough eventually, or else a small (few gig) harddrive could easily substitute and you can work on your new data as it is being transferred online.  Once computers become less powerful though, this won't be viable so it will be first transferred online.</p><p>  Think about it.  There are millions (billions?) of computers everywhere, holding parts of data, much of it redundant, processing computations a small portion of the time.  The rest of the time it sits idle, most likely taking up energy for sleep mode.  In the future, there will just be large hosting sites, constantly being used by everyone.  No wasted disk, no wasted CPUs doing nothing.</p><p>  As I see it, computers will become glorified screens, a GPU, and drivers for the physical stuff (cameras, etc., although one can envision those devices using the internet directly as always-on-internet becomes ubiquitous).  All the bulk from CPUs, cooling, etc. will be gone.  All data and applications will be in massive host sites, containing everything.  Computation will be done remotely too, so if you need a huge cluster to run calculations, you have it.</p><p>  Here are my predictions, benefits, and why we are screwed:<br>
   - No more backing up.  Data will be distributed across the world and backed up.<br>
   - Patches, upgrades, etc., long a bane of administration and especially games, will be gone.  One app that everyone runs.<br>
   - And hence... no need for an IT budget besides the cloud fees.  No more small shops with a patchwork of bad policies and worse admins.<br>
   - Piracy is dead: Once applications are hosted, there is no such thing as pirating.  Unfortunately, there is no such thing as verifying who is using the app.  It'll be tied to the computer, but it'll still be impossible to verify that you're not letting a friend use your login to run the app.<br>
   - Getting all the processing you can, all the time, will be dangerous as presumably you will be charged for processing being done.  For example, fork bombs might become costly! There has to be some mechanism of letting the user throttle how much he is charged for.  Everybody has access to cluster computing though, which will be awesome.<br>
   - Security: Application separation will be total.  Definitely there will be no inter-app memory accessing, and preferably each application will only have access to its own sandbox in terms of data.  For inter-app sharing, maybe you will be able to specify what pieces of data can be access by what program?<br>
   - At first, I thought Google would position itself as the gateway to everything, but this is not possible.  Anyone can make a new operating system now (with the linux kernel), simply provid</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We are all screwed .
As bandwidth increases , and people become continually used to having their data online ( gmail , gdocs , dropbox ) there is no more need for operating systems besides the kernel and windowing .
Every application that you need can run from something that access the internet , and obtains data necessary to render the app from the cloud .
All data will be in the cloud .
Even now , in its early stages , there are impressive photoshop-like online apps with good responsiveness .
The last bastion that still needs an OS is games , but that limitation too is dead [ joystiq.com ] .
I ca n't think of any application that is n't amenable to cloud computing : incremental data updates , with potentially a lot of computation being done in memory ( games and whatnot ) or on large amounts of data ( movie encoding ) , all of which gets done on the hosting side .
Only the updates of progress and GUI need to be sent to the client .
The only exception I can think of is processing of large amounts of data that is local ( for example , plugging in a camcorder and wanting to encode the movie ) .
In that case , the data will be sent to the cloud if bandwidth is high enough eventually , or else a small ( few gig ) harddrive could easily substitute and you can work on your new data as it is being transferred online .
Once computers become less powerful though , this wo n't be viable so it will be first transferred online .
Think about it .
There are millions ( billions ?
) of computers everywhere , holding parts of data , much of it redundant , processing computations a small portion of the time .
The rest of the time it sits idle , most likely taking up energy for sleep mode .
In the future , there will just be large hosting sites , constantly being used by everyone .
No wasted disk , no wasted CPUs doing nothing .
As I see it , computers will become glorified screens , a GPU , and drivers for the physical stuff ( cameras , etc. , although one can envision those devices using the internet directly as always-on-internet becomes ubiquitous ) .
All the bulk from CPUs , cooling , etc .
will be gone .
All data and applications will be in massive host sites , containing everything .
Computation will be done remotely too , so if you need a huge cluster to run calculations , you have it .
Here are my predictions , benefits , and why we are screwed : - No more backing up .
Data will be distributed across the world and backed up .
- Patches , upgrades , etc. , long a bane of administration and especially games , will be gone .
One app that everyone runs .
- And hence... no need for an IT budget besides the cloud fees .
No more small shops with a patchwork of bad policies and worse admins .
- Piracy is dead : Once applications are hosted , there is no such thing as pirating .
Unfortunately , there is no such thing as verifying who is using the app .
It 'll be tied to the computer , but it 'll still be impossible to verify that you 're not letting a friend use your login to run the app .
- Getting all the processing you can , all the time , will be dangerous as presumably you will be charged for processing being done .
For example , fork bombs might become costly !
There has to be some mechanism of letting the user throttle how much he is charged for .
Everybody has access to cluster computing though , which will be awesome .
- Security : Application separation will be total .
Definitely there will be no inter-app memory accessing , and preferably each application will only have access to its own sandbox in terms of data .
For inter-app sharing , maybe you will be able to specify what pieces of data can be access by what program ?
- At first , I thought Google would position itself as the gateway to everything , but this is not possible .
Anyone can make a new operating system now ( with the linux kernel ) , simply provid</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
  We are all screwed.
As bandwidth increases, and people become continually used to having their data online (gmail, gdocs, dropbox) there is no more need for operating systems besides the kernel and windowing.
Every application that you need can run from something that access the internet, and obtains data necessary to render the app from the cloud.
All data will be in the cloud.
Even now, in its early stages, there are impressive photoshop-like online apps with good responsiveness.
The last bastion that still needs an OS is games, but that limitation too is dead [joystiq.com].
I can't think of any application that isn't amenable to cloud computing: incremental data updates, with potentially a lot of computation being done in memory (games and whatnot) or on large amounts of data (movie encoding), all of which gets done on the hosting side.
Only the updates of progress and GUI need to be sent to the client.
The only exception I can think of is processing of large amounts of data that is local (for example, plugging in a camcorder and wanting to encode the movie).
In that case, the data will be sent to the cloud if bandwidth is high enough eventually, or else a small (few gig) harddrive could easily substitute and you can work on your new data as it is being transferred online.
Once computers become less powerful though, this won't be viable so it will be first transferred online.
Think about it.
There are millions (billions?
) of computers everywhere, holding parts of data, much of it redundant, processing computations a small portion of the time.
The rest of the time it sits idle, most likely taking up energy for sleep mode.
In the future, there will just be large hosting sites, constantly being used by everyone.
No wasted disk, no wasted CPUs doing nothing.
As I see it, computers will become glorified screens, a GPU, and drivers for the physical stuff (cameras, etc., although one can envision those devices using the internet directly as always-on-internet becomes ubiquitous).
All the bulk from CPUs, cooling, etc.
will be gone.
All data and applications will be in massive host sites, containing everything.
Computation will be done remotely too, so if you need a huge cluster to run calculations, you have it.
Here are my predictions, benefits, and why we are screwed:
   - No more backing up.
Data will be distributed across the world and backed up.
- Patches, upgrades, etc., long a bane of administration and especially games, will be gone.
One app that everyone runs.
- And hence... no need for an IT budget besides the cloud fees.
No more small shops with a patchwork of bad policies and worse admins.
- Piracy is dead: Once applications are hosted, there is no such thing as pirating.
Unfortunately, there is no such thing as verifying who is using the app.
It'll be tied to the computer, but it'll still be impossible to verify that you're not letting a friend use your login to run the app.
- Getting all the processing you can, all the time, will be dangerous as presumably you will be charged for processing being done.
For example, fork bombs might become costly!
There has to be some mechanism of letting the user throttle how much he is charged for.
Everybody has access to cluster computing though, which will be awesome.
- Security: Application separation will be total.
Definitely there will be no inter-app memory accessing, and preferably each application will only have access to its own sandbox in terms of data.
For inter-app sharing, maybe you will be able to specify what pieces of data can be access by what program?
- At first, I thought Google would position itself as the gateway to everything, but this is not possible.
Anyone can make a new operating system now (with the linux kernel), simply provid</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620461</id>
	<title>Re:The web is NOT the OS</title>
	<author>smallshot</author>
	<datestamp>1247061540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree with you, web applications are overrated, and overused.  Certain things should be left to native code, or at least a decent virtual machine.  Anyone else notice that our processors get faster, our internet access gets faster, and even still, web applications get slower and slower?<p><div class="quote"><p>I don't like the Chrome browser and I don't need an OS named Chrome that is actually Linux with a lame web browser bolted on as the front end.</p></div><p>That reminds me, who is going to sue Google for distributing their OS without choice of browser... <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_v.\_Microsoft" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">United States vs Microsoft</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you , web applications are overrated , and overused .
Certain things should be left to native code , or at least a decent virtual machine .
Anyone else notice that our processors get faster , our internet access gets faster , and even still , web applications get slower and slower ? I do n't like the Chrome browser and I do n't need an OS named Chrome that is actually Linux with a lame web browser bolted on as the front end.That reminds me , who is going to sue Google for distributing their OS without choice of browser... United States vs Microsoft [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you, web applications are overrated, and overused.
Certain things should be left to native code, or at least a decent virtual machine.
Anyone else notice that our processors get faster, our internet access gets faster, and even still, web applications get slower and slower?I don't like the Chrome browser and I don't need an OS named Chrome that is actually Linux with a lame web browser bolted on as the front end.That reminds me, who is going to sue Google for distributing their OS without choice of browser... United States vs Microsoft [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620607</id>
	<title>Re:Competition is good, baby!</title>
	<author>contrapunctus</author>
	<datestamp>1247062140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually I'd be more worried about privacy.
Can I assume everthing I do (or browse) will be reported back to Google?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually I 'd be more worried about privacy .
Can I assume everthing I do ( or browse ) will be reported back to Google ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually I'd be more worried about privacy.
Can I assume everthing I do (or browse) will be reported back to Google?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621099</id>
	<title>Re:Yawn, another distro?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247063940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Money. Lot's of Money.</p><p>As they say.... money moves mountains.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Money .
Lot 's of Money.As they say.... money moves mountains .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Money.
Lot's of Money.As they say.... money moves mountains.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625039</id>
	<title>Re:Fear</title>
	<author>Krneki</author>
	<datestamp>1247077800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ehm, I guess you are not running M$ or Apple.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ehm , I guess you are not running M $ or Apple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ehm, I guess you are not running M$ or Apple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619981</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28632485</id>
	<title>Re:The web is NOT the OS</title>
	<author>koreaman</author>
	<datestamp>1247075820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Or Microsoft announcing the Internet Explorer OS?</p></div></blockquote><p>Been there, done that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or Microsoft announcing the Internet Explorer OS ? Been there , done that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or Microsoft announcing the Internet Explorer OS?Been there, done that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620587</id>
	<title>Re:Automatically or automagically?</title>
	<author>Ephemeriis</author>
	<datestamp>1247062080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>From what I hear, there is this little prerequisite called "internet access".</p></div><p>For testing purposes I routinely run web applications from my local machine.</p><p>While this product is currently non-existent and talking about capabilities doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense, there's no good reason why you wouldn't be able to run web applications from local storage if necessary.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I hear , there is this little prerequisite called " internet access " .For testing purposes I routinely run web applications from my local machine.While this product is currently non-existent and talking about capabilities does n't make a whole hell of a lot of sense , there 's no good reason why you would n't be able to run web applications from local storage if necessary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I hear, there is this little prerequisite called "internet access".For testing purposes I routinely run web applications from my local machine.While this product is currently non-existent and talking about capabilities doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense, there's no good reason why you wouldn't be able to run web applications from local storage if necessary.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623339</id>
	<title>Re:The web is NOT the OS</title>
	<author>fahrbot-bot</author>
	<datestamp>1247071860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The web is email, ftp, live video, instant messaging, word processing, photo galleries, forums, flash, games, television... You get the idea.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Close.  Technically all that is the Internet, of which the "web" is a part.  Now many parts of the Internet (a small number you enumerated) may be accessable via the web, but most are still separate parts.  I've used the Internet since it was the ARPAnet, and while the great majority of its users now interact with it mainly via their browser, the "web" is but a small part of the whole in actuality.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The web is email , ftp , live video , instant messaging , word processing , photo galleries , forums , flash , games , television... You get the idea .
Close. Technically all that is the Internet , of which the " web " is a part .
Now many parts of the Internet ( a small number you enumerated ) may be accessable via the web , but most are still separate parts .
I 've used the Internet since it was the ARPAnet , and while the great majority of its users now interact with it mainly via their browser , the " web " is but a small part of the whole in actuality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The web is email, ftp, live video, instant messaging, word processing, photo galleries, forums, flash, games, television... You get the idea.
Close.  Technically all that is the Internet, of which the "web" is a part.
Now many parts of the Internet (a small number you enumerated) may be accessable via the web, but most are still separate parts.
I've used the Internet since it was the ARPAnet, and while the great majority of its users now interact with it mainly via their browser, the "web" is but a small part of the whole in actuality.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28627303</id>
	<title>Re:This recession is a good time to strike</title>
	<author>thinkloop</author>
	<datestamp>1247085780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>if Google has deep pockets, Microsoft's are even deeper.</p></div><p>Practically speaking, I don't think MSFT's pockets are deeper. Sure they make/have more money, but are they going to shutdown XBOX, Zune, Office, SQL Server, CRM and Exchange just to compete with Google? Mano e mano I'd say they have about the same amount of cash to burn.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if Google has deep pockets , Microsoft 's are even deeper.Practically speaking , I do n't think MSFT 's pockets are deeper .
Sure they make/have more money , but are they going to shutdown XBOX , Zune , Office , SQL Server , CRM and Exchange just to compete with Google ?
Mano e mano I 'd say they have about the same amount of cash to burn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if Google has deep pockets, Microsoft's are even deeper.Practically speaking, I don't think MSFT's pockets are deeper.
Sure they make/have more money, but are they going to shutdown XBOX, Zune, Office, SQL Server, CRM and Exchange just to compete with Google?
Mano e mano I'd say they have about the same amount of cash to burn.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620199</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622799</id>
	<title>Re:Yawn, another distro?</title>
	<author>RiotingPacifist</author>
	<datestamp>1247069880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why don't companies port their apps to Linux?</p></div><p>Because most linux users will accept slightly (or moderately) inferior OSS apps over ports of closed apps. It's not just the low market-share that stops it, its the unreceptive market too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't companies port their apps to Linux ? Because most linux users will accept slightly ( or moderately ) inferior OSS apps over ports of closed apps .
It 's not just the low market-share that stops it , its the unreceptive market too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't companies port their apps to Linux?Because most linux users will accept slightly (or moderately) inferior OSS apps over ports of closed apps.
It's not just the low market-share that stops it, its the unreceptive market too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28626471</id>
	<title>Re:Will it support Internet Explorer?</title>
	<author>gbarules2999</author>
	<datestamp>1247082660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"why do you complain about Windows coming bundled with explorer and not Chrome when you can't even <b>run</b> explorer in the Chrome OS".</p></div><p>Google then grabs the board game "Monopoly" and chucks it at the lawyer, then turns to the jury and says, "Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" why do you complain about Windows coming bundled with explorer and not Chrome when you ca n't even run explorer in the Chrome OS " .Google then grabs the board game " Monopoly " and chucks it at the lawyer , then turns to the jury and says , " Do not pass Go .
Do not collect $ 200 .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"why do you complain about Windows coming bundled with explorer and not Chrome when you can't even run explorer in the Chrome OS".Google then grabs the board game "Monopoly" and chucks it at the lawyer, then turns to the jury and says, "Do not pass Go.
Do not collect $200.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28630755</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>zuperduperman</author>
	<datestamp>1247061000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I too like Win7, my only complaint is that I think Microsoft is charging about double what they should be for it.   So what really interests me about this announcement is that it throws the gauntlet down to Win7 in the netbook space and *I hope* will give Microsoft a serious rethink wrt pricing.  They're going to have to really justify every dollar extra they add to the price of a netbook when Google is out there with a product that is not only free but actually superior in many ways (superior meaning: instant on, zero viruses, etc. etc.).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I too like Win7 , my only complaint is that I think Microsoft is charging about double what they should be for it .
So what really interests me about this announcement is that it throws the gauntlet down to Win7 in the netbook space and * I hope * will give Microsoft a serious rethink wrt pricing .
They 're going to have to really justify every dollar extra they add to the price of a netbook when Google is out there with a product that is not only free but actually superior in many ways ( superior meaning : instant on , zero viruses , etc .
etc. ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I too like Win7, my only complaint is that I think Microsoft is charging about double what they should be for it.
So what really interests me about this announcement is that it throws the gauntlet down to Win7 in the netbook space and *I hope* will give Microsoft a serious rethink wrt pricing.
They're going to have to really justify every dollar extra they add to the price of a netbook when Google is out there with a product that is not only free but actually superior in many ways (superior meaning: instant on, zero viruses, etc.
etc.).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620123</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28645389</id>
	<title>Printer drivers</title>
	<author>illtud</author>
	<datestamp>1247152020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Because this one will be a distro backed by the marketing clout and the manpower of a 125-billion-dollar corporation. Who have clout with OEMs and governments. Who have enough drones for programming a decent printer driver or providing non-snarky support.</p></div><p>You mentioned the one thing that nobody else (browsing at 2+) got: this is going to be linux distro that will have to support all printers, as google have the muscle that has been missing in other linux distro vendors. Unless google create a new printing system, or sell a notebook OS that can't print to most people's printers, the printer vendors will be forced to play along and supply linux printer drivers. I can't see google (with their cash and clout) release an OS for notebooks that has a "(limited) supported printer list" - if they go for this for real, then linux suddenly has that OEM muscle that's always been lacking.</p><p>Webcams, wifi etc. probably won't benefit as much, as they tend to be builtin, but if google seriously want to release a mass-market OS, we'll suddenly see a huge improvement in linux printer drivers, even if google have to pay the OEMs for it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because this one will be a distro backed by the marketing clout and the manpower of a 125-billion-dollar corporation .
Who have clout with OEMs and governments .
Who have enough drones for programming a decent printer driver or providing non-snarky support.You mentioned the one thing that nobody else ( browsing at 2 + ) got : this is going to be linux distro that will have to support all printers , as google have the muscle that has been missing in other linux distro vendors .
Unless google create a new printing system , or sell a notebook OS that ca n't print to most people 's printers , the printer vendors will be forced to play along and supply linux printer drivers .
I ca n't see google ( with their cash and clout ) release an OS for notebooks that has a " ( limited ) supported printer list " - if they go for this for real , then linux suddenly has that OEM muscle that 's always been lacking.Webcams , wifi etc .
probably wo n't benefit as much , as they tend to be builtin , but if google seriously want to release a mass-market OS , we 'll suddenly see a huge improvement in linux printer drivers , even if google have to pay the OEMs for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because this one will be a distro backed by the marketing clout and the manpower of a 125-billion-dollar corporation.
Who have clout with OEMs and governments.
Who have enough drones for programming a decent printer driver or providing non-snarky support.You mentioned the one thing that nobody else (browsing at 2+) got: this is going to be linux distro that will have to support all printers, as google have the muscle that has been missing in other linux distro vendors.
Unless google create a new printing system, or sell a notebook OS that can't print to most people's printers, the printer vendors will be forced to play along and supply linux printer drivers.
I can't see google (with their cash and clout) release an OS for notebooks that has a "(limited) supported printer list" - if they go for this for real, then linux suddenly has that OEM muscle that's always been lacking.Webcams, wifi etc.
probably won't benefit as much, as they tend to be builtin, but if google seriously want to release a mass-market OS, we'll suddenly see a huge improvement in linux printer drivers, even if google have to pay the OEMs for it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620633</id>
	<title>Re:Fast web OS needed!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247062260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Computers need to get better. People want to get to their email instantly, without wasting time waiting for their computers to boot and browsers to start up. They want their computers to always run as fast as when they first bought them.</p></div><p>They are trying to fill a niche of an OS that boots fast and is basically just a browser. This OS will have a desktop with some online favourites... and that might be just what you need on a <b>NET</b>book..!</p><p>Gmail already looks like a standalone app on Windows with Google Chrome and Offline enabled, you get a nice icon on the desktop. And when you click it it loads in a second, instead of the several minutes my Outlook used to take to even be barely useable. The choice is clear, sluggish native apps are becoming obsolete, and lightweight online apps are becoming more and more reliable. And when you only use these kind of netapps, why bother installing a bloated OS. This might just be the next revolution in the netbook industry.</p><p>On a side note: I can't wait until a new OS finally achieves the startup times of the good old trusy Commodore 64.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div><p>I love using GMail, but since when has it been lightweight?  Outlook at work starts up faster than waiting for that "Loading GMail" progress bar to finish.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Computers need to get better .
People want to get to their email instantly , without wasting time waiting for their computers to boot and browsers to start up .
They want their computers to always run as fast as when they first bought them.They are trying to fill a niche of an OS that boots fast and is basically just a browser .
This OS will have a desktop with some online favourites... and that might be just what you need on a NETbook.. ! Gmail already looks like a standalone app on Windows with Google Chrome and Offline enabled , you get a nice icon on the desktop .
And when you click it it loads in a second , instead of the several minutes my Outlook used to take to even be barely useable .
The choice is clear , sluggish native apps are becoming obsolete , and lightweight online apps are becoming more and more reliable .
And when you only use these kind of netapps , why bother installing a bloated OS .
This might just be the next revolution in the netbook industry.On a side note : I ca n't wait until a new OS finally achieves the startup times of the good old trusy Commodore 64. : - ) I love using GMail , but since when has it been lightweight ?
Outlook at work starts up faster than waiting for that " Loading GMail " progress bar to finish .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Computers need to get better.
People want to get to their email instantly, without wasting time waiting for their computers to boot and browsers to start up.
They want their computers to always run as fast as when they first bought them.They are trying to fill a niche of an OS that boots fast and is basically just a browser.
This OS will have a desktop with some online favourites... and that might be just what you need on a NETbook..!Gmail already looks like a standalone app on Windows with Google Chrome and Offline enabled, you get a nice icon on the desktop.
And when you click it it loads in a second, instead of the several minutes my Outlook used to take to even be barely useable.
The choice is clear, sluggish native apps are becoming obsolete, and lightweight online apps are becoming more and more reliable.
And when you only use these kind of netapps, why bother installing a bloated OS.
This might just be the next revolution in the netbook industry.On a side note: I can't wait until a new OS finally achieves the startup times of the good old trusy Commodore 64. :-)I love using GMail, but since when has it been lightweight?
Outlook at work starts up faster than waiting for that "Loading GMail" progress bar to finish.
:)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623213</id>
	<title>little baby tears</title>
	<author>uberjoe</author>
	<datestamp>1247071380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The web is not the OS. The web is...the web. I do NOT want everything to be a goddamn web app. Web apps work very well for certain applications, and Google has shown that they can push the limits with dynamic content, but that does not mean the web application is an appropriate model for every damned application.</p></div><p>So stop whining, and don't use it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The web is not the OS .
The web is...the web .
I do NOT want everything to be a goddamn web app .
Web apps work very well for certain applications , and Google has shown that they can push the limits with dynamic content , but that does not mean the web application is an appropriate model for every damned application.So stop whining , and do n't use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The web is not the OS.
The web is...the web.
I do NOT want everything to be a goddamn web app.
Web apps work very well for certain applications, and Google has shown that they can push the limits with dynamic content, but that does not mean the web application is an appropriate model for every damned application.So stop whining, and don't use it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28626407</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247082480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>definately the case here too, all my ubuntu dist installs on my laptops and home computer and vista installs at work (sigh outlook) have gone to a Win7 and vertex SSD combo, which truely is just fast and does what it needs to do. My comparison would be the same that I havent had a OS 'feel' as solid since NT4.</p><p>I'm no longer battling the OS to keep my pc's up month to month, they now just 'work'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>definately the case here too , all my ubuntu dist installs on my laptops and home computer and vista installs at work ( sigh outlook ) have gone to a Win7 and vertex SSD combo , which truely is just fast and does what it needs to do .
My comparison would be the same that I havent had a OS 'feel ' as solid since NT4.I 'm no longer battling the OS to keep my pc 's up month to month , they now just 'work'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>definately the case here too, all my ubuntu dist installs on my laptops and home computer and vista installs at work (sigh outlook) have gone to a Win7 and vertex SSD combo, which truely is just fast and does what it needs to do.
My comparison would be the same that I havent had a OS 'feel' as solid since NT4.I'm no longer battling the OS to keep my pc's up month to month, they now just 'work'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620123</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28628971</id>
	<title>Re:Will it support Internet Explorer?</title>
	<author>microbee</author>
	<datestamp>1247050560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft is welcome to port IE to Linux.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft is welcome to port IE to Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft is welcome to port IE to Linux.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28631019</id>
	<title>Re:Mcdonaldsoft rival at last!</title>
	<author>Hadlock</author>
	<datestamp>1247062920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It might mean better linux driver support for hardware beyond Nvidia and ATi. At least apple-level support (which isn't much, but it's something).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It might mean better linux driver support for hardware beyond Nvidia and ATi .
At least apple-level support ( which is n't much , but it 's something ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It might mean better linux driver support for hardware beyond Nvidia and ATi.
At least apple-level support (which isn't much, but it's something).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619971</id>
	<title>Breaking News!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247059200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My Grandad already called me an hour ago and told me this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My Grandad already called me an hour ago and told me this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My Grandad already called me an hour ago and told me this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621543</id>
	<title>I do get a choice</title>
	<author>js\_sebastian</author>
	<datestamp>1247065440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>I do NOT want everything to be a goddamn web app.</p></div><p>I'm not certain that's really something you get a choice in.</p></div><p>Really? So who is going to stop me from running all those applications that are already available out there (and open source) on my own machine? I will not adopt a web app unless it has advantages large enough to balance out the fact that it needs internet connectivity to work AND that any information I put in it is irrevocably out of my control.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do NOT want everything to be a goddamn web app.I 'm not certain that 's really something you get a choice in.Really ?
So who is going to stop me from running all those applications that are already available out there ( and open source ) on my own machine ?
I will not adopt a web app unless it has advantages large enough to balance out the fact that it needs internet connectivity to work AND that any information I put in it is irrevocably out of my control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do NOT want everything to be a goddamn web app.I'm not certain that's really something you get a choice in.Really?
So who is going to stop me from running all those applications that are already available out there (and open source) on my own machine?
I will not adopt a web app unless it has advantages large enough to balance out the fact that it needs internet connectivity to work AND that any information I put in it is irrevocably out of my control.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622027</id>
	<title>Re:Automatically or automagically?</title>
	<author>LKM</author>
	<datestamp>1247067300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A lot of Google's web apps run just fine while offline.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of Google 's web apps run just fine while offline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of Google's web apps run just fine while offline.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620513</id>
	<title>Re:This recession is a good time to strike</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247061780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>one thing I notice in your comment:</p><p>MSFT [google.com] and GOOG [google.com]</p><p>easy to see where google has the upper hand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>one thing I notice in your comment : MSFT [ google.com ] and GOOG [ google.com ] easy to see where google has the upper hand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>one thing I notice in your comment:MSFT [google.com] and GOOG [google.com]easy to see where google has the upper hand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620199</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623297</id>
	<title>Re:The web is NOT the OS</title>
	<author>Jeema</author>
	<datestamp>1247071680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I do NOT want everything to be a goddamn web app.</p></div><p>Too bad!  Every application from now on is a web app!  And every coffee grinder and toaster from now on is USB compatible!
<br> <br>
Just accept the new world order and stop pointing out things that don't make sense - you'll be much happier.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do NOT want everything to be a goddamn web app.Too bad !
Every application from now on is a web app !
And every coffee grinder and toaster from now on is USB compatible !
Just accept the new world order and stop pointing out things that do n't make sense - you 'll be much happier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do NOT want everything to be a goddamn web app.Too bad!
Every application from now on is a web app!
And every coffee grinder and toaster from now on is USB compatible!
Just accept the new world order and stop pointing out things that don't make sense - you'll be much happier.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619957</id>
	<title>Hold on a sec...</title>
	<author>mc moss</author>
	<datestamp>1247059140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Buying stocks in companies that make chairs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Buying stocks in companies that make chairs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Buying stocks in companies that make chairs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620453</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>noundi</author>
	<datestamp>1247061480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The summary sound rather, well, dumb.</p></div><p>It's a selling pitch, get over it. The logic goes: the world is full of idiots and scarce on brains. Hire the brains, sell to the idiots.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary sound rather , well , dumb.It 's a selling pitch , get over it .
The logic goes : the world is full of idiots and scarce on brains .
Hire the brains , sell to the idiots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary sound rather, well, dumb.It's a selling pitch, get over it.
The logic goes: the world is full of idiots and scarce on brains.
Hire the brains, sell to the idiots.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621009</id>
	<title>Re:Yawn, another distro?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247063580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How is this going to be different from other Linux distros and associated GUI revamp projects that have sprung up promising "we're going to be better than Windows! Really!" over the years?</p></div><p>Google has money.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this going to be different from other Linux distros and associated GUI revamp projects that have sprung up promising " we 're going to be better than Windows !
Really ! " over the years ? Google has money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this going to be different from other Linux distros and associated GUI revamp projects that have sprung up promising "we're going to be better than Windows!
Really!" over the years?Google has money.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621033</id>
	<title>Re:Fast web OS needed!</title>
	<author>Canazza</author>
	<datestamp>1247063700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I can't wait until a new OS finally achieves the startup times of the good old trusy Commodore 64</p></div></blockquote><p>yes, but lets hope it doesn't emulate the application loading times of the C64... Batman anyone?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't wait until a new OS finally achieves the startup times of the good old trusy Commodore 64yes , but lets hope it does n't emulate the application loading times of the C64... Batman anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't wait until a new OS finally achieves the startup times of the good old trusy Commodore 64yes, but lets hope it doesn't emulate the application loading times of the C64... Batman anyone?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623511</id>
	<title>Re:Yawn, another distro?</title>
	<author>SilverHatHacker</author>
	<datestamp>1247072460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The reason though why Linux doesn't gain more marketshare is because people can not bring the apps they are used to over when they switch.</p></div><p>
When netbooks first came out, people said "Oh, look, Linux would be perfect for that!" So they started selling netboosk preinstalled with Linux. Why didn't they go over as well as we expected? Sure, everything you <em>should</em> do on a netbook, you can do on Linux. But since the netbook's target audience doesn't understand computers at all, they complained "Why doesn't $APPLICATION work on this piece of junk Linux? I want Windows!"<br>
I don't see this being any different, just because it's got Google. Even worse, people will buy it and say "Where's my Firefox? I don't understand this!" and take it back. If a full-featured distro didn't make it, I don't think a Google/Web-only distro is gonna have a chance.<br>
I can't wait to be proven wrong, though.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason though why Linux does n't gain more marketshare is because people can not bring the apps they are used to over when they switch .
When netbooks first came out , people said " Oh , look , Linux would be perfect for that !
" So they started selling netboosk preinstalled with Linux .
Why did n't they go over as well as we expected ?
Sure , everything you should do on a netbook , you can do on Linux .
But since the netbook 's target audience does n't understand computers at all , they complained " Why does n't $ APPLICATION work on this piece of junk Linux ?
I want Windows !
" I do n't see this being any different , just because it 's got Google .
Even worse , people will buy it and say " Where 's my Firefox ?
I do n't understand this !
" and take it back .
If a full-featured distro did n't make it , I do n't think a Google/Web-only distro is gon na have a chance .
I ca n't wait to be proven wrong , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason though why Linux doesn't gain more marketshare is because people can not bring the apps they are used to over when they switch.
When netbooks first came out, people said "Oh, look, Linux would be perfect for that!
" So they started selling netboosk preinstalled with Linux.
Why didn't they go over as well as we expected?
Sure, everything you should do on a netbook, you can do on Linux.
But since the netbook's target audience doesn't understand computers at all, they complained "Why doesn't $APPLICATION work on this piece of junk Linux?
I want Windows!
"
I don't see this being any different, just because it's got Google.
Even worse, people will buy it and say "Where's my Firefox?
I don't understand this!
" and take it back.
If a full-featured distro didn't make it, I don't think a Google/Web-only distro is gonna have a chance.
I can't wait to be proven wrong, though.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621339</id>
	<title>Re:The web is NOT the OS</title>
	<author>mattwarden</author>
	<datestamp>1247064600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So don't use it. But I'd like to check it out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So do n't use it .
But I 'd like to check it out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So don't use it.
But I'd like to check it out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622731</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Xabraxas</author>
	<datestamp>1247069640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're joking right?  64-bit Linux has way less issues with driver compatibility than does any version of 64-bit Windows.  I can't even think of a driver that doesn't work on 64-bit Linux.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're joking right ?
64-bit Linux has way less issues with driver compatibility than does any version of 64-bit Windows .
I ca n't even think of a driver that does n't work on 64-bit Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're joking right?
64-bit Linux has way less issues with driver compatibility than does any version of 64-bit Windows.
I can't even think of a driver that doesn't work on 64-bit Linux.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620439</id>
	<title>Re:Competition is good, baby!</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1247061420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hereby dub thee the ee cummings of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hereby dub thee the ee cummings of / .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hereby dub thee the ee cummings of /.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622989</id>
	<title>Re:The web is NOT the OS</title>
	<author>walterbyrd</author>
	<datestamp>1247070480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think you understand. This is not supposed to complete replace your desktop. It's something between a 3G cellphone and a laptop. You can run your business while you are sitting around waiting at the airport. Are of your files are easily accessible online. Use an online service, like Xero, for accounting and you probably don't need msft for anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think you understand .
This is not supposed to complete replace your desktop .
It 's something between a 3G cellphone and a laptop .
You can run your business while you are sitting around waiting at the airport .
Are of your files are easily accessible online .
Use an online service , like Xero , for accounting and you probably do n't need msft for anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think you understand.
This is not supposed to complete replace your desktop.
It's something between a 3G cellphone and a laptop.
You can run your business while you are sitting around waiting at the airport.
Are of your files are easily accessible online.
Use an online service, like Xero, for accounting and you probably don't need msft for anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620791</id>
	<title>Re:Competition is good, baby!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247062800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No company puts a huge amount of effort into<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.5\% of its customers.</p><p>Its unfortunate that a small # of linux users have this self-righteous 'we deserve for every big company to spend as much money on our<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.5-1\% of the market as they do on the other 99-99.5\%' attitude.</p><p>Google is a for profit business, spending much time on linux chrome is contrary that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No company puts a huge amount of effort into .5 \ % of its customers.Its unfortunate that a small # of linux users have this self-righteous 'we deserve for every big company to spend as much money on our .5-1 \ % of the market as they do on the other 99-99.5 \ % ' attitude.Google is a for profit business , spending much time on linux chrome is contrary that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No company puts a huge amount of effort into .5\% of its customers.Its unfortunate that a small # of linux users have this self-righteous 'we deserve for every big company to spend as much money on our .5-1\% of the market as they do on the other 99-99.5\%' attitude.Google is a for profit business, spending much time on linux chrome is contrary that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28633263</id>
	<title>Re:Pixel-level access?</title>
	<author>Allicorn</author>
	<datestamp>1247172360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Graphics:<br><a href="http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/" title="w3.org">http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/</a> [w3.org]<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canvas\_(HTML\_element)" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canvas\_(HTML\_element)</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Filesystem access:<br><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/offline-webapps/" title="w3.org">http://www.w3.org/TR/offline-webapps/</a> [w3.org]<br><a href="http://gears.google.com/" title="google.com">http://gears.google.com/</a> [google.com]</p><p>Point is, there won't be much local filesystem access. Read the blog post again.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The software architecture is simple &#226;" Google Chrome running within a new windowing system on top of a Linux kernel. For application developers, the web is the platform.</p></div><p>..and..</p><p><div class="quote"><p>They want their data to be accessible to them wherever they are and not have to worry about losing their computer or forgetting to back up files</p></div><p>Google expect all your data to be stored on their servers. All. Local storage is only a convenience in that it can act as a buffer that keeps things running while your're on the subway or otherwise temporarily offline.</p><p>Most importantly..</p><p><div class="quote"><p>For application developers, the web is the platform.</p></div><p>That's it right there. There is no "native Chrome app", and local filesystem access is meaningless when the whole user experience takes place on a webpage. There is only the web.</p><p>[disclaimer: I'm not claiming this is a good idea!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-) ]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Graphics : http : //www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/ [ w3.org ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canvas \ _ ( HTML \ _element ) [ wikipedia.org ] Filesystem access : http : //www.w3.org/TR/offline-webapps/ [ w3.org ] http : //gears.google.com/ [ google.com ] Point is , there wo n't be much local filesystem access .
Read the blog post again.The software architecture is simple   " Google Chrome running within a new windowing system on top of a Linux kernel .
For application developers , the web is the platform...and..They want their data to be accessible to them wherever they are and not have to worry about losing their computer or forgetting to back up filesGoogle expect all your data to be stored on their servers .
All. Local storage is only a convenience in that it can act as a buffer that keeps things running while your 're on the subway or otherwise temporarily offline.Most importantly..For application developers , the web is the platform.That 's it right there .
There is no " native Chrome app " , and local filesystem access is meaningless when the whole user experience takes place on a webpage .
There is only the web .
[ disclaimer : I 'm not claiming this is a good idea !
; - ) ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Graphics:http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/ [w3.org]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canvas\_(HTML\_element) [wikipedia.org]Filesystem access:http://www.w3.org/TR/offline-webapps/ [w3.org]http://gears.google.com/ [google.com]Point is, there won't be much local filesystem access.
Read the blog post again.The software architecture is simple â" Google Chrome running within a new windowing system on top of a Linux kernel.
For application developers, the web is the platform...and..They want their data to be accessible to them wherever they are and not have to worry about losing their computer or forgetting to back up filesGoogle expect all your data to be stored on their servers.
All. Local storage is only a convenience in that it can act as a buffer that keeps things running while your're on the subway or otherwise temporarily offline.Most importantly..For application developers, the web is the platform.That's it right there.
There is no "native Chrome app", and local filesystem access is meaningless when the whole user experience takes place on a webpage.
There is only the web.
[disclaimer: I'm not claiming this is a good idea!
;-) ]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620145</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28624567</id>
	<title>Re:Why would I want this?</title>
	<author>fyoder</author>
	<datestamp>1247076240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Technical Linux people aren't going to want it.</p></div><p>I'm a technical linux people.  All I need on a netbook are a browser and a shell.  If it's cool and runs on cool hardware it could very well be an option.  What you describe is what I want on my desktop which is a different beast and one I don't think Google is targeting with this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Technical Linux people are n't going to want it.I 'm a technical linux people .
All I need on a netbook are a browser and a shell .
If it 's cool and runs on cool hardware it could very well be an option .
What you describe is what I want on my desktop which is a different beast and one I do n't think Google is targeting with this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Technical Linux people aren't going to want it.I'm a technical linux people.
All I need on a netbook are a browser and a shell.
If it's cool and runs on cool hardware it could very well be an option.
What you describe is what I want on my desktop which is a different beast and one I don't think Google is targeting with this.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28627787</id>
	<title>And the metamorphosis is complete!</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1247044860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They have become Microsoft!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They have become Microsoft !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have become Microsoft!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625707</id>
	<title>Re:Yawn, another distro?</title>
	<author>VGPowerlord</author>
	<datestamp>1247080080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Because this one will be a distro backed by the marketing clout and the manpower of a 125-billion-dollar corporation. Who have clout with OEMs</p></div></blockquote><p>[citation needed]</p><p>Why exactly would Google have clout with OEMs?  How many computers have you seen that ship with Google Earth, etc...?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because this one will be a distro backed by the marketing clout and the manpower of a 125-billion-dollar corporation .
Who have clout with OEMs [ citation needed ] Why exactly would Google have clout with OEMs ?
How many computers have you seen that ship with Google Earth , etc... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because this one will be a distro backed by the marketing clout and the manpower of a 125-billion-dollar corporation.
Who have clout with OEMs[citation needed]Why exactly would Google have clout with OEMs?
How many computers have you seen that ship with Google Earth, etc...?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620857</id>
	<title>Re:The web is NOT the OS</title>
	<author>agentultra</author>
	<datestamp>1247063040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The web is not the OS. The web is...the web. I do NOT want everything to be a goddamn web app. Web apps work very well for certain applications, and Google has shown that they can push the limits with dynamic content, but that does not mean the web application is an appropriate model for every damned application. I don't like the Chrome browser and I don't need an OS named Chrome that is actually Linux with a lame web browser bolted on as the front end. Google does search very well, but I've hated most of their other stuff. (Google Earth is one exception) I expect no different from this.</p></div><p>But.. but... I don't know how to program anything else! The web is the future! FUTURE!</p><p>In all seriousness, I basically feel exactly the same way. I've been building 'web applications' for companies for years because that's all they're hiring people for. It sometimes surprises me that it ever works at all. The sheer number of brittle components all hobbled together... there are so many weak points where something can go wrong. It just makes for one big headache after another. X11 is a server and has been delivering <i>stateful</i> GUIs across the network since the early nineties at least! It amazes me, the amount of technology we have today, and what we've chosen to do with it. It could have been so much more, but instead the worst possible solution won out the day... and now a whole generation of developers have no exposure to anything else. </p><p>Is everyone seriously impressed that we're creating stateless GUIs to remote applications by scripting marked-up text inside increasingly bloated and resource-hogging third-party applications? Is this the future? Really?</p><p>I'm with you on this one.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The web is not the OS .
The web is...the web .
I do NOT want everything to be a goddamn web app .
Web apps work very well for certain applications , and Google has shown that they can push the limits with dynamic content , but that does not mean the web application is an appropriate model for every damned application .
I do n't like the Chrome browser and I do n't need an OS named Chrome that is actually Linux with a lame web browser bolted on as the front end .
Google does search very well , but I 've hated most of their other stuff .
( Google Earth is one exception ) I expect no different from this.But.. but... I do n't know how to program anything else !
The web is the future !
FUTURE ! In all seriousness , I basically feel exactly the same way .
I 've been building 'web applications ' for companies for years because that 's all they 're hiring people for .
It sometimes surprises me that it ever works at all .
The sheer number of brittle components all hobbled together... there are so many weak points where something can go wrong .
It just makes for one big headache after another .
X11 is a server and has been delivering stateful GUIs across the network since the early nineties at least !
It amazes me , the amount of technology we have today , and what we 've chosen to do with it .
It could have been so much more , but instead the worst possible solution won out the day... and now a whole generation of developers have no exposure to anything else .
Is everyone seriously impressed that we 're creating stateless GUIs to remote applications by scripting marked-up text inside increasingly bloated and resource-hogging third-party applications ?
Is this the future ?
Really ? I 'm with you on this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The web is not the OS.
The web is...the web.
I do NOT want everything to be a goddamn web app.
Web apps work very well for certain applications, and Google has shown that they can push the limits with dynamic content, but that does not mean the web application is an appropriate model for every damned application.
I don't like the Chrome browser and I don't need an OS named Chrome that is actually Linux with a lame web browser bolted on as the front end.
Google does search very well, but I've hated most of their other stuff.
(Google Earth is one exception) I expect no different from this.But.. but... I don't know how to program anything else!
The web is the future!
FUTURE!In all seriousness, I basically feel exactly the same way.
I've been building 'web applications' for companies for years because that's all they're hiring people for.
It sometimes surprises me that it ever works at all.
The sheer number of brittle components all hobbled together... there are so many weak points where something can go wrong.
It just makes for one big headache after another.
X11 is a server and has been delivering stateful GUIs across the network since the early nineties at least!
It amazes me, the amount of technology we have today, and what we've chosen to do with it.
It could have been so much more, but instead the worst possible solution won out the day... and now a whole generation of developers have no exposure to anything else.
Is everyone seriously impressed that we're creating stateless GUIs to remote applications by scripting marked-up text inside increasingly bloated and resource-hogging third-party applications?
Is this the future?
Really?I'm with you on this one.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621923</id>
	<title>Re:The web is NOT the OS</title>
	<author>gentlemen\_loser</author>
	<datestamp>1247066880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The web isn't what it used to be.  The days when the web was mostly a collection of static pages are long gone.  The web is dynamic, interactive, and user-driven.  The web is email, ftp, live video, instant messaging, word processing, photo galleries, forums, flash, games, television...  You get the idea.</p></div><p>
Web, you keep using this word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.<br> <br>

Of the technologies you listed above, the following: email, ftp, and instant messaging all fall squarely under the term "Internet", not web (although some of them have a web front end grafted on).  Arguably, live video, games, and television fall into the same category.   Word processing is something that should have been left on the desktop.  Photo galleries, in terms of sharing data, are good candidates for the web.  Flash should just die already and I wish forums were still mostly in Usenet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The web is n't what it used to be .
The days when the web was mostly a collection of static pages are long gone .
The web is dynamic , interactive , and user-driven .
The web is email , ftp , live video , instant messaging , word processing , photo galleries , forums , flash , games , television... You get the idea .
Web , you keep using this word .
I do not think it means what you think it means .
Of the technologies you listed above , the following : email , ftp , and instant messaging all fall squarely under the term " Internet " , not web ( although some of them have a web front end grafted on ) .
Arguably , live video , games , and television fall into the same category .
Word processing is something that should have been left on the desktop .
Photo galleries , in terms of sharing data , are good candidates for the web .
Flash should just die already and I wish forums were still mostly in Usenet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The web isn't what it used to be.
The days when the web was mostly a collection of static pages are long gone.
The web is dynamic, interactive, and user-driven.
The web is email, ftp, live video, instant messaging, word processing, photo galleries, forums, flash, games, television...  You get the idea.
Web, you keep using this word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
Of the technologies you listed above, the following: email, ftp, and instant messaging all fall squarely under the term "Internet", not web (although some of them have a web front end grafted on).
Arguably, live video, games, and television fall into the same category.
Word processing is something that should have been left on the desktop.
Photo galleries, in terms of sharing data, are good candidates for the web.
Flash should just die already and I wish forums were still mostly in Usenet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621307</id>
	<title>Re:Why would I want this?</title>
	<author>Tweenk</author>
	<datestamp>1247064480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No X server wipes out being able to run most of the GUI software in the ecosystem.</p></div><p>I really doubt they will remove X. They may not use X.org, but not using the X11 protocol would make life much harder for them. Most probably they will have a trimmed down X server that works very close to the hardware like Wayland, with an API built on top of the X11 protocol but hiding its complexity.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>You locked to google.</p></div><p>Even if they won't have X (which I think they will use), they will open source their display system, so it will be possible to write a perfect emulator that passed the display calls to X.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The best google could have done is done yet another standard Linux distro, with X in some form, so they can tap into the existing software ecosystem.</p></div><p>I have reason to believe this is what they've done. While for Android it makes little sense to support existing apps because they weren't designed for phones and most often just don't work very well with small screens and/or touchscreens, it makes a lot of sense for netbooks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No X server wipes out being able to run most of the GUI software in the ecosystem.I really doubt they will remove X. They may not use X.org , but not using the X11 protocol would make life much harder for them .
Most probably they will have a trimmed down X server that works very close to the hardware like Wayland , with an API built on top of the X11 protocol but hiding its complexity.You locked to google.Even if they wo n't have X ( which I think they will use ) , they will open source their display system , so it will be possible to write a perfect emulator that passed the display calls to X.The best google could have done is done yet another standard Linux distro , with X in some form , so they can tap into the existing software ecosystem.I have reason to believe this is what they 've done .
While for Android it makes little sense to support existing apps because they were n't designed for phones and most often just do n't work very well with small screens and/or touchscreens , it makes a lot of sense for netbooks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No X server wipes out being able to run most of the GUI software in the ecosystem.I really doubt they will remove X. They may not use X.org, but not using the X11 protocol would make life much harder for them.
Most probably they will have a trimmed down X server that works very close to the hardware like Wayland, with an API built on top of the X11 protocol but hiding its complexity.You locked to google.Even if they won't have X (which I think they will use), they will open source their display system, so it will be possible to write a perfect emulator that passed the display calls to X.The best google could have done is done yet another standard Linux distro, with X in some form, so they can tap into the existing software ecosystem.I have reason to believe this is what they've done.
While for Android it makes little sense to support existing apps because they weren't designed for phones and most often just don't work very well with small screens and/or touchscreens, it makes a lot of sense for netbooks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623723</id>
	<title>Crazy Talk</title>
	<author>MonsterTrimble</author>
	<datestamp>1247073240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I put on my tinfoil hat and look at this, I have to applaud Google &#226;" this has been planned for ages &#226;" four years minimum. The long view that this would have required is masterful.</p><p>1) gOS - Started in the beginning of 2007, it is a Linux distro which uses Enlightenment as its window manager and a host of Google Apps right on the desktop. It currently sits #21 on Distrowatch&#226;(TM)s top 100.<br>2) Mozilla - Google is responsible for 90\% of their funding. Firefox (and to a lesser extent) Thunderbird have been eating IE &amp; Outlook's lunch for quite some now.<br>3) Chrome - Released about a year ago, has tweaked the performance non-stop, and has done a lot of minimalist approaches.</p><p>Personally, I think Chrome OS will be gOS 4. It will feature a heavily tweaked E20 (You read that right - I don&#226;(TM)t think Enlightenment&#226;(TM)s sudden release schedule is a co-incidence) which will use the current chrome palette, tabs for desktops and google widgets. Firefox &amp; Thunderbird will be HEAVILY integrated/rebranded with the google online apps and will sync all the time for your calender, news &amp; mail. The Gooffice suite will probably utilize a minimal browser window with the apps on the hard drive but will feature the same sync features that the rest of the apps have.</p><p>
&nbsp; Is it crazy? Yeah, no doubt about it, but if this was really planned that way, I think Microsoft is in trouble.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I put on my tinfoil hat and look at this , I have to applaud Google   " this has been planned for ages   " four years minimum .
The long view that this would have required is masterful.1 ) gOS - Started in the beginning of 2007 , it is a Linux distro which uses Enlightenment as its window manager and a host of Google Apps right on the desktop .
It currently sits # 21 on Distrowatch   ( TM ) s top 100.2 ) Mozilla - Google is responsible for 90 \ % of their funding .
Firefox ( and to a lesser extent ) Thunderbird have been eating IE &amp; Outlook 's lunch for quite some now.3 ) Chrome - Released about a year ago , has tweaked the performance non-stop , and has done a lot of minimalist approaches.Personally , I think Chrome OS will be gOS 4 .
It will feature a heavily tweaked E20 ( You read that right - I don   ( TM ) t think Enlightenment   ( TM ) s sudden release schedule is a co-incidence ) which will use the current chrome palette , tabs for desktops and google widgets .
Firefox &amp; Thunderbird will be HEAVILY integrated/rebranded with the google online apps and will sync all the time for your calender , news &amp; mail .
The Gooffice suite will probably utilize a minimal browser window with the apps on the hard drive but will feature the same sync features that the rest of the apps have .
  Is it crazy ?
Yeah , no doubt about it , but if this was really planned that way , I think Microsoft is in trouble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I put on my tinfoil hat and look at this, I have to applaud Google â" this has been planned for ages â" four years minimum.
The long view that this would have required is masterful.1) gOS - Started in the beginning of 2007, it is a Linux distro which uses Enlightenment as its window manager and a host of Google Apps right on the desktop.
It currently sits #21 on Distrowatchâ(TM)s top 100.2) Mozilla - Google is responsible for 90\% of their funding.
Firefox (and to a lesser extent) Thunderbird have been eating IE &amp; Outlook's lunch for quite some now.3) Chrome - Released about a year ago, has tweaked the performance non-stop, and has done a lot of minimalist approaches.Personally, I think Chrome OS will be gOS 4.
It will feature a heavily tweaked E20 (You read that right - I donâ(TM)t think Enlightenmentâ(TM)s sudden release schedule is a co-incidence) which will use the current chrome palette, tabs for desktops and google widgets.
Firefox &amp; Thunderbird will be HEAVILY integrated/rebranded with the google online apps and will sync all the time for your calender, news &amp; mail.
The Gooffice suite will probably utilize a minimal browser window with the apps on the hard drive but will feature the same sync features that the rest of the apps have.
  Is it crazy?
Yeah, no doubt about it, but if this was really planned that way, I think Microsoft is in trouble.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28628187</id>
	<title>Re:The web is NOT the OS</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1247046780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The web isn't what it used to be. The days when the web was mostly a collection of static pages are long gone. The web is dynamic, interactive, and user-driven. The web is email, ftp, live video, instant messaging, word processing, photo galleries, forums, flash, games, television... You get the idea.</i></p><p>That's fine. The web is fantastic for content delivery and for filling out forms. But the web is also trying to be my photo editor, my scientific application, my spreadsheet, my hardcore games machine, my flight simulator....you get the idea.</p><p>The web is not suited to every damned thing.</p><p><b>I do NOT want everything to be a goddamn web app.</b></p><p><i>I'm not certain that's really something you get a choice in.</i></p><p>Of course I get a choice. I get to vote with my feet. If I don't want to use a new web based version of something, I simply don't (at least for home and personal use).</p><p><i>Would you feel better if it was Apple announcing the Safari OS? Or Mozilla announcing the Firefox OS? Or Microsoft announcing the Internet Explorer OS?</i></p><p>Nope. The web is not the OS. The entire attempt to enmesh the two is a grave misunderstanding of what the OS does. The web is an interface. The OS communicates with the hardware. Getting rid of the window manager and marrying simply removes options and possibilities and it does NOT give you anything beyond what you already have when you launch a web browser through your window manager. The entire paradigm is totally ridiculous.</p><p><i>These days it seems absurd to talk about running Photoshop or AutoCAD through a web browser... But in another dozen years it may make perfect sense.</i></p><p>No, it won't! It's just adding another layer of complexity. What you need for graphics editing and design is access to an interface that's able to quickly talk to the hardware and present dynamic content without going back and talking to a server half a world away. We already have that. Creating a web centric window manager browser hybrid and then circumventing the need to talk back to the server so that the content can appear as dynamic is a STUPID way to do it.</p><p><i>I'm not a big fan of Google Earth. It doesn't seem to have much of a point to me. I do enjoy Gmail though, and I make use Google Docs from time to time. Enough people out there are unimpressed with Google's search to keep folks like Yahoo and Ask in business.</i></p><p>Well you lack imagination. Google Earth was at least innovative. It allows you to bring up satellite imagery of most of the globe - something we didn't have before. Gmail though is just another mail app. There were plenty of web mail applications before GMail and they didn't have big brother retention policies like GMail. Google Docs is a stupid idea. Putting every application on the web is simply a security risk, and you become dependent on software you no longer have any control over should you wish to access those documents.</p><p><i>The fact of the matter is that an awful lot of work is done through a web UI these days. And if you can replace a full-blown computer with some kind of thin client you can, potentially, save a lot of time and money on maintenance. This is just a web-based thin client, nothing more or less.</i></p><p>Yes and another word for thin client is dumb terminal. You no longer have a powerful computer at your disposal - you have a "dumb" terminal, and you'll eat what you're fed and like it - you have no alternative. What's more the control of the server is no longer with you or your organisation - it's with a handful of megacorps. It's a foolish trade off that in the long run can only end in tears.</p><p><i>And if Google sees success with its Chrome OS you can certainly expect to see competition appear. There's nothing preventing you from rolling out your own Linux+Firefox/Opera/whatever thin client.</i></p><p>Sorry but I'm not about to compete in the enslavement of the computer user.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The web is n't what it used to be .
The days when the web was mostly a collection of static pages are long gone .
The web is dynamic , interactive , and user-driven .
The web is email , ftp , live video , instant messaging , word processing , photo galleries , forums , flash , games , television... You get the idea.That 's fine .
The web is fantastic for content delivery and for filling out forms .
But the web is also trying to be my photo editor , my scientific application , my spreadsheet , my hardcore games machine , my flight simulator....you get the idea.The web is not suited to every damned thing.I do NOT want everything to be a goddamn web app.I 'm not certain that 's really something you get a choice in.Of course I get a choice .
I get to vote with my feet .
If I do n't want to use a new web based version of something , I simply do n't ( at least for home and personal use ) .Would you feel better if it was Apple announcing the Safari OS ?
Or Mozilla announcing the Firefox OS ?
Or Microsoft announcing the Internet Explorer OS ? Nope .
The web is not the OS .
The entire attempt to enmesh the two is a grave misunderstanding of what the OS does .
The web is an interface .
The OS communicates with the hardware .
Getting rid of the window manager and marrying simply removes options and possibilities and it does NOT give you anything beyond what you already have when you launch a web browser through your window manager .
The entire paradigm is totally ridiculous.These days it seems absurd to talk about running Photoshop or AutoCAD through a web browser... But in another dozen years it may make perfect sense.No , it wo n't !
It 's just adding another layer of complexity .
What you need for graphics editing and design is access to an interface that 's able to quickly talk to the hardware and present dynamic content without going back and talking to a server half a world away .
We already have that .
Creating a web centric window manager browser hybrid and then circumventing the need to talk back to the server so that the content can appear as dynamic is a STUPID way to do it.I 'm not a big fan of Google Earth .
It does n't seem to have much of a point to me .
I do enjoy Gmail though , and I make use Google Docs from time to time .
Enough people out there are unimpressed with Google 's search to keep folks like Yahoo and Ask in business.Well you lack imagination .
Google Earth was at least innovative .
It allows you to bring up satellite imagery of most of the globe - something we did n't have before .
Gmail though is just another mail app .
There were plenty of web mail applications before GMail and they did n't have big brother retention policies like GMail .
Google Docs is a stupid idea .
Putting every application on the web is simply a security risk , and you become dependent on software you no longer have any control over should you wish to access those documents.The fact of the matter is that an awful lot of work is done through a web UI these days .
And if you can replace a full-blown computer with some kind of thin client you can , potentially , save a lot of time and money on maintenance .
This is just a web-based thin client , nothing more or less.Yes and another word for thin client is dumb terminal .
You no longer have a powerful computer at your disposal - you have a " dumb " terminal , and you 'll eat what you 're fed and like it - you have no alternative .
What 's more the control of the server is no longer with you or your organisation - it 's with a handful of megacorps .
It 's a foolish trade off that in the long run can only end in tears.And if Google sees success with its Chrome OS you can certainly expect to see competition appear .
There 's nothing preventing you from rolling out your own Linux + Firefox/Opera/whatever thin client.Sorry but I 'm not about to compete in the enslavement of the computer user .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The web isn't what it used to be.
The days when the web was mostly a collection of static pages are long gone.
The web is dynamic, interactive, and user-driven.
The web is email, ftp, live video, instant messaging, word processing, photo galleries, forums, flash, games, television... You get the idea.That's fine.
The web is fantastic for content delivery and for filling out forms.
But the web is also trying to be my photo editor, my scientific application, my spreadsheet, my hardcore games machine, my flight simulator....you get the idea.The web is not suited to every damned thing.I do NOT want everything to be a goddamn web app.I'm not certain that's really something you get a choice in.Of course I get a choice.
I get to vote with my feet.
If I don't want to use a new web based version of something, I simply don't (at least for home and personal use).Would you feel better if it was Apple announcing the Safari OS?
Or Mozilla announcing the Firefox OS?
Or Microsoft announcing the Internet Explorer OS?Nope.
The web is not the OS.
The entire attempt to enmesh the two is a grave misunderstanding of what the OS does.
The web is an interface.
The OS communicates with the hardware.
Getting rid of the window manager and marrying simply removes options and possibilities and it does NOT give you anything beyond what you already have when you launch a web browser through your window manager.
The entire paradigm is totally ridiculous.These days it seems absurd to talk about running Photoshop or AutoCAD through a web browser... But in another dozen years it may make perfect sense.No, it won't!
It's just adding another layer of complexity.
What you need for graphics editing and design is access to an interface that's able to quickly talk to the hardware and present dynamic content without going back and talking to a server half a world away.
We already have that.
Creating a web centric window manager browser hybrid and then circumventing the need to talk back to the server so that the content can appear as dynamic is a STUPID way to do it.I'm not a big fan of Google Earth.
It doesn't seem to have much of a point to me.
I do enjoy Gmail though, and I make use Google Docs from time to time.
Enough people out there are unimpressed with Google's search to keep folks like Yahoo and Ask in business.Well you lack imagination.
Google Earth was at least innovative.
It allows you to bring up satellite imagery of most of the globe - something we didn't have before.
Gmail though is just another mail app.
There were plenty of web mail applications before GMail and they didn't have big brother retention policies like GMail.
Google Docs is a stupid idea.
Putting every application on the web is simply a security risk, and you become dependent on software you no longer have any control over should you wish to access those documents.The fact of the matter is that an awful lot of work is done through a web UI these days.
And if you can replace a full-blown computer with some kind of thin client you can, potentially, save a lot of time and money on maintenance.
This is just a web-based thin client, nothing more or less.Yes and another word for thin client is dumb terminal.
You no longer have a powerful computer at your disposal - you have a "dumb" terminal, and you'll eat what you're fed and like it - you have no alternative.
What's more the control of the server is no longer with you or your organisation - it's with a handful of megacorps.
It's a foolish trade off that in the long run can only end in tears.And if Google sees success with its Chrome OS you can certainly expect to see competition appear.
There's nothing preventing you from rolling out your own Linux+Firefox/Opera/whatever thin client.Sorry but I'm not about to compete in the enslavement of the computer user.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620521</id>
	<title>Re:The web is NOT the OS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247061840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The web is not the OS. The web is...the web.</p></div><p>The web isn't what it used to be.  The days when the web was mostly a collection of static pages are long gone.  The web is dynamic, interactive, and user-driven.  The web is email, ftp, live video, instant messaging, word processing, photo galleries, forums, flash, games, television...  You get the idea.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I do NOT want everything to be a goddamn web app.</p></div><p>I'm not certain that's really something you get a choice in.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Web apps work very well for certain applications, and Google has shown that they can push the limits with dynamic content, but that does not mean the web application is an appropriate model for every damned application.</p></div><p>Technology grows, changes, advances - this is especially true in IT.  If you go back a dozen years or so there was no way in hell you'd be able to run a word processor through a web page.  Just plain was not going to happen.  Now we've got Google Docs, which has some issues, but mostly works.</p><p>These days it seems absurd to talk about running Photoshop or AutoCAD through a web browser...  But in another dozen years it may make perfect sense.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't like the Chrome browser and I don't need an OS named Chrome that is actually Linux with a lame web browser bolted on as the front end.</p></div><p>Would you feel better if it was Apple announcing the Safari OS?  Or Mozilla announcing the Firefox OS?  Or Microsoft announcing the Internet Explorer OS?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Google does search very well, but I've hated most of their other stuff. (Google Earth is one exception) I expect no different from this.</p></div><p>Other people, obviously, disagree.</p><p>I'm not a big fan of Google Earth.  It doesn't seem to have much of a point to me.  I do enjoy Gmail though, and I make use Google Docs from time to time.  Enough people out there are unimpressed with Google's search to keep folks like Yahoo and Ask in business.</p><p>The fact of the matter is that an awful lot of work is done through a web UI these days.  And if you can replace a full-blown computer with some kind of thin client you can, potentially, save a lot of time and money on maintenance.  This is just a web-based thin client, nothing more or less.</p><p>And if Google sees success with its Chrome OS you can certainly expect to see competition appear.  There's nothing preventing you from rolling out your own Linux+Firefox/Opera/whatever thin client.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The web is not the OS .
The web is...the web.The web is n't what it used to be .
The days when the web was mostly a collection of static pages are long gone .
The web is dynamic , interactive , and user-driven .
The web is email , ftp , live video , instant messaging , word processing , photo galleries , forums , flash , games , television... You get the idea.I do NOT want everything to be a goddamn web app.I 'm not certain that 's really something you get a choice in.Web apps work very well for certain applications , and Google has shown that they can push the limits with dynamic content , but that does not mean the web application is an appropriate model for every damned application.Technology grows , changes , advances - this is especially true in IT .
If you go back a dozen years or so there was no way in hell you 'd be able to run a word processor through a web page .
Just plain was not going to happen .
Now we 've got Google Docs , which has some issues , but mostly works.These days it seems absurd to talk about running Photoshop or AutoCAD through a web browser... But in another dozen years it may make perfect sense.I do n't like the Chrome browser and I do n't need an OS named Chrome that is actually Linux with a lame web browser bolted on as the front end.Would you feel better if it was Apple announcing the Safari OS ?
Or Mozilla announcing the Firefox OS ?
Or Microsoft announcing the Internet Explorer OS ? Google does search very well , but I 've hated most of their other stuff .
( Google Earth is one exception ) I expect no different from this.Other people , obviously , disagree.I 'm not a big fan of Google Earth .
It does n't seem to have much of a point to me .
I do enjoy Gmail though , and I make use Google Docs from time to time .
Enough people out there are unimpressed with Google 's search to keep folks like Yahoo and Ask in business.The fact of the matter is that an awful lot of work is done through a web UI these days .
And if you can replace a full-blown computer with some kind of thin client you can , potentially , save a lot of time and money on maintenance .
This is just a web-based thin client , nothing more or less.And if Google sees success with its Chrome OS you can certainly expect to see competition appear .
There 's nothing preventing you from rolling out your own Linux + Firefox/Opera/whatever thin client .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The web is not the OS.
The web is...the web.The web isn't what it used to be.
The days when the web was mostly a collection of static pages are long gone.
The web is dynamic, interactive, and user-driven.
The web is email, ftp, live video, instant messaging, word processing, photo galleries, forums, flash, games, television...  You get the idea.I do NOT want everything to be a goddamn web app.I'm not certain that's really something you get a choice in.Web apps work very well for certain applications, and Google has shown that they can push the limits with dynamic content, but that does not mean the web application is an appropriate model for every damned application.Technology grows, changes, advances - this is especially true in IT.
If you go back a dozen years or so there was no way in hell you'd be able to run a word processor through a web page.
Just plain was not going to happen.
Now we've got Google Docs, which has some issues, but mostly works.These days it seems absurd to talk about running Photoshop or AutoCAD through a web browser...  But in another dozen years it may make perfect sense.I don't like the Chrome browser and I don't need an OS named Chrome that is actually Linux with a lame web browser bolted on as the front end.Would you feel better if it was Apple announcing the Safari OS?
Or Mozilla announcing the Firefox OS?
Or Microsoft announcing the Internet Explorer OS?Google does search very well, but I've hated most of their other stuff.
(Google Earth is one exception) I expect no different from this.Other people, obviously, disagree.I'm not a big fan of Google Earth.
It doesn't seem to have much of a point to me.
I do enjoy Gmail though, and I make use Google Docs from time to time.
Enough people out there are unimpressed with Google's search to keep folks like Yahoo and Ask in business.The fact of the matter is that an awful lot of work is done through a web UI these days.
And if you can replace a full-blown computer with some kind of thin client you can, potentially, save a lot of time and money on maintenance.
This is just a web-based thin client, nothing more or less.And if Google sees success with its Chrome OS you can certainly expect to see competition appear.
There's nothing preventing you from rolling out your own Linux+Firefox/Opera/whatever thin client.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625457</id>
	<title>Re:Competition is good, baby!</title>
	<author>nschubach</author>
	<datestamp>1247079240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't think of an appropriate combination of ASCII pictures to represent capitalism in a way which he could understand (without having to explain it all later in parenthesis.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't think of an appropriate combination of ASCII pictures to represent capitalism in a way which he could understand ( without having to explain it all later in parenthesis .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't think of an appropriate combination of ASCII pictures to represent capitalism in a way which he could understand (without having to explain it all later in parenthesis.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620705</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621957</id>
	<title>What is "the web"?</title>
	<author>LKM</author>
	<datestamp>1247067060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The web" is basically an application framework. You write applications in JavaScript, with HTML and CSS as a display layer. Web applications currently can't do some things "native" apps can (let's see, simple access to the HD, hardware acceleration and similar things), but they're catching up fast.</p><p>Complaining about web apps is like complaining about<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net/Mono apps or Java apps. It doesn't really matter how the apps you use are written, as long as they do what you want them to do, and do it well. As the "web framework" becomes more advanced, the difference between web apps and native apps will become smaller and smaller until it will eventually go away entirely.</p><p>Complaining about an application's underlying framework is kind of stupid (like all the Mac people whining about how they don't want to use Carbon apps).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The web " is basically an application framework .
You write applications in JavaScript , with HTML and CSS as a display layer .
Web applications currently ca n't do some things " native " apps can ( let 's see , simple access to the HD , hardware acceleration and similar things ) , but they 're catching up fast.Complaining about web apps is like complaining about .Net/Mono apps or Java apps .
It does n't really matter how the apps you use are written , as long as they do what you want them to do , and do it well .
As the " web framework " becomes more advanced , the difference between web apps and native apps will become smaller and smaller until it will eventually go away entirely.Complaining about an application 's underlying framework is kind of stupid ( like all the Mac people whining about how they do n't want to use Carbon apps ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The web" is basically an application framework.
You write applications in JavaScript, with HTML and CSS as a display layer.
Web applications currently can't do some things "native" apps can (let's see, simple access to the HD, hardware acceleration and similar things), but they're catching up fast.Complaining about web apps is like complaining about .Net/Mono apps or Java apps.
It doesn't really matter how the apps you use are written, as long as they do what you want them to do, and do it well.
As the "web framework" becomes more advanced, the difference between web apps and native apps will become smaller and smaller until it will eventually go away entirely.Complaining about an application's underlying framework is kind of stupid (like all the Mac people whining about how they don't want to use Carbon apps).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620641</id>
	<title>Re:The web is NOT the OS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247062320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You probably said the same thing about punch cards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You probably said the same thing about punch cards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You probably said the same thing about punch cards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621199</id>
	<title>MUST PLAY ALL GAMES!!! MOST IMPORTANT!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247064120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>aaaa aa aaaaaaa aaaaaa aaaaaaaa aaaaaaaa<br>aaaaaa  aaaaaaaaa aaaaaa aaaaaaaaaa<br>aaaaa aaaaaaaa  aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa<br>aaa aa aaaa aaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaa<br>aaaaa  aaaaaaa aaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaa<br>aaaaa  aaaaaa aaaa aaaaa aaaaaa<br>aaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaa aaaaaa</p><p>
&nbsp; GOOGLE, I KNOW YOU READ THIS.<br>
&nbsp; AT LUNCH YOUR SYSTEM MUST BE ABLE TO PLAY<br>EVERY SINGLE PC GAME OUT THERE!<br>OR YOU FAIL!</p><p>
&nbsp; Thank you.<br>aaaaa aaaaaaaaa aaaaaa aaaaaaa<br>aaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa<br>aaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa<br>aa<br>Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>aaaa aa aaaaaaa aaaaaa aaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaa aaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aa aaaa aaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaa aaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaa aaaa aaaaa aaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaa aaaaaa   GOOGLE , I KNOW YOU READ THIS .
  AT LUNCH YOUR SYSTEM MUST BE ABLE TO PLAYEVERY SINGLE PC GAME OUT THERE ! OR YOU FAIL !
  Thank you.aaaaa aaaaaaaaa aaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaFilter error : Do n't use so many caps .
It 's like YELLING .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>aaaa aa aaaaaaa aaaaaa aaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaa  aaaaaaaaa aaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaa  aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aa aaaa aaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaa  aaaaaaa aaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaa  aaaaaa aaaa aaaaa aaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaa aaaaaa
  GOOGLE, I KNOW YOU READ THIS.
  AT LUNCH YOUR SYSTEM MUST BE ABLE TO PLAYEVERY SINGLE PC GAME OUT THERE!OR YOU FAIL!
  Thank you.aaaaa aaaaaaaaa aaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaFilter error: Don't use so many caps.
It's like YELLING.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621297</id>
	<title>Re:This recession is a good time to strike</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247064420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But this is <i>not</i> software for Linux. It is software for the web that happens to run on Linux. By using this, you have traded being locked into Microsoft's platforms for being locked into Google's platforms. I don't see that this is better.</p><p>In fact it is probably worse. If I buy a Microsoft program, I can expect it to work for the lifetime of my PC, if not longer. It might suck that all my documents are in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.docx format and nothing else can read them properly, but how much worse to not even have <i>access</i> to those documents unless I have an Internet connection and Google is accepting my login id?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But this is not software for Linux .
It is software for the web that happens to run on Linux .
By using this , you have traded being locked into Microsoft 's platforms for being locked into Google 's platforms .
I do n't see that this is better.In fact it is probably worse .
If I buy a Microsoft program , I can expect it to work for the lifetime of my PC , if not longer .
It might suck that all my documents are in .docx format and nothing else can read them properly , but how much worse to not even have access to those documents unless I have an Internet connection and Google is accepting my login id ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But this is not software for Linux.
It is software for the web that happens to run on Linux.
By using this, you have traded being locked into Microsoft's platforms for being locked into Google's platforms.
I don't see that this is better.In fact it is probably worse.
If I buy a Microsoft program, I can expect it to work for the lifetime of my PC, if not longer.
It might suck that all my documents are in .docx format and nothing else can read them properly, but how much worse to not even have access to those documents unless I have an Internet connection and Google is accepting my login id?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620199</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625755</id>
	<title>Re:Web-based admin night be nice</title>
	<author>Chris\_Mir</author>
	<datestamp>1247080320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why stop with system administration through a web interface. Basically all types of applications, like their own office suite, could run through the web interface. Through a specialized local webserver, named application server, local and remote applications could run transparently for the user, Google could choose to store the most basic software units of their office suite at the clients computer for basic off-line usage (don't know if that is already a provided functionality). Think of a window manager with browser capabilities embedded.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why stop with system administration through a web interface .
Basically all types of applications , like their own office suite , could run through the web interface .
Through a specialized local webserver , named application server , local and remote applications could run transparently for the user , Google could choose to store the most basic software units of their office suite at the clients computer for basic off-line usage ( do n't know if that is already a provided functionality ) .
Think of a window manager with browser capabilities embedded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why stop with system administration through a web interface.
Basically all types of applications, like their own office suite, could run through the web interface.
Through a specialized local webserver, named application server, local and remote applications could run transparently for the user, Google could choose to store the most basic software units of their office suite at the clients computer for basic off-line usage (don't know if that is already a provided functionality).
Think of a window manager with browser capabilities embedded.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620847</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>dazjorz</author>
	<datestamp>1247063040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I actually think they mean Android, since that's also targeting netbooks and was also made by Google. (Other than that, an OS focusing on speed, simplicity and security isn't big news nowadays, is it...)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually think they mean Android , since that 's also targeting netbooks and was also made by Google .
( Other than that , an OS focusing on speed , simplicity and security is n't big news nowadays , is it... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually think they mean Android, since that's also targeting netbooks and was also made by Google.
(Other than that, an OS focusing on speed, simplicity and security isn't big news nowadays, is it...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620873</id>
	<title>Netscape all over again.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247063100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah! How times change and how times remain all the same.</p><p>Microsoft has well known since the Netscape days that the Web could make the OS completely irrelevant.</p><p>Which is why they promptly moved to kill Netscape (please, save to yourselves the comments about how crappy Netscape Navigator was,  the crapyness of that software was an important contributing factor to the demise of the company, but the smoking gun was to be found in the office of Bill Gates himself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah !
How times change and how times remain all the same.Microsoft has well known since the Netscape days that the Web could make the OS completely irrelevant.Which is why they promptly moved to kill Netscape ( please , save to yourselves the comments about how crappy Netscape Navigator was , the crapyness of that software was an important contributing factor to the demise of the company , but the smoking gun was to be found in the office of Bill Gates himself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah!
How times change and how times remain all the same.Microsoft has well known since the Netscape days that the Web could make the OS completely irrelevant.Which is why they promptly moved to kill Netscape (please, save to yourselves the comments about how crappy Netscape Navigator was,  the crapyness of that software was an important contributing factor to the demise of the company, but the smoking gun was to be found in the office of Bill Gates himself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620375</id>
	<title>Why would I want this?</title>
	<author>jabjoe</author>
	<datestamp>1247061120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a Linux distro that can't run any non-google-SDK software. No X server wipes out being able to run most of the GUI software in the ecosystem. You locked to google. Why would I want this? Technical Linux people aren't going to want it. Normal users won't dare install any thing called an operating system. And everyone, will want to be able to run the apps they want, not only google approved ones. All this pain just for browser? This seems to be built on the dream of a thin client that runs nothing but a browser and all software is web software. It's an old dream, the world only needs five real computers, etc etc. Thing is, we don't want to be controlled, never have. I want to run what I want, how I want thank you very much Mr mainframe. If I'm right about the web app stance, this is a stupid idea come up with by people who think they can see the future but aren't looking at the past.
The best google could have done is done yet another standard Linux distro, with X in some form, so they can tap into the existing software ecosystem. They can quality control the software with a repository. That way they can take advantage of much of the existing Unix software. Then they can use their brand, and Linux speed, security, software base, etc etc, to make it big in the OS world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a Linux distro that ca n't run any non-google-SDK software .
No X server wipes out being able to run most of the GUI software in the ecosystem .
You locked to google .
Why would I want this ?
Technical Linux people are n't going to want it .
Normal users wo n't dare install any thing called an operating system .
And everyone , will want to be able to run the apps they want , not only google approved ones .
All this pain just for browser ?
This seems to be built on the dream of a thin client that runs nothing but a browser and all software is web software .
It 's an old dream , the world only needs five real computers , etc etc .
Thing is , we do n't want to be controlled , never have .
I want to run what I want , how I want thank you very much Mr mainframe .
If I 'm right about the web app stance , this is a stupid idea come up with by people who think they can see the future but are n't looking at the past .
The best google could have done is done yet another standard Linux distro , with X in some form , so they can tap into the existing software ecosystem .
They can quality control the software with a repository .
That way they can take advantage of much of the existing Unix software .
Then they can use their brand , and Linux speed , security , software base , etc etc , to make it big in the OS world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a Linux distro that can't run any non-google-SDK software.
No X server wipes out being able to run most of the GUI software in the ecosystem.
You locked to google.
Why would I want this?
Technical Linux people aren't going to want it.
Normal users won't dare install any thing called an operating system.
And everyone, will want to be able to run the apps they want, not only google approved ones.
All this pain just for browser?
This seems to be built on the dream of a thin client that runs nothing but a browser and all software is web software.
It's an old dream, the world only needs five real computers, etc etc.
Thing is, we don't want to be controlled, never have.
I want to run what I want, how I want thank you very much Mr mainframe.
If I'm right about the web app stance, this is a stupid idea come up with by people who think they can see the future but aren't looking at the past.
The best google could have done is done yet another standard Linux distro, with X in some form, so they can tap into the existing software ecosystem.
They can quality control the software with a repository.
That way they can take advantage of much of the existing Unix software.
Then they can use their brand, and Linux speed, security, software base, etc etc, to make it big in the OS world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621429</id>
	<title>Anonymous  Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247064900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Crap Now their going to say that Mikeysoft will create the Explorer OS, where the browser is the OS.....Oh wait nevr mind</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Crap Now their going to say that Mikeysoft will create the Explorer OS , where the browser is the OS.....Oh wait nevr mind</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Crap Now their going to say that Mikeysoft will create the Explorer OS, where the browser is the OS.....Oh wait nevr mind</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28624427</id>
	<title>Look at GWT. You won't code HTML and Javascript</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247075760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really. Take a look at it.</p><p><a href="http://gwt.google.com/samples/Showcase/Showcase.html#CwDatePicker" title="google.com">GWT DatePicker</a> [google.com]</p><p>See the example and the code.</p><p>No HTML or Javascript whatsoever. Only CSS needed for styling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really .
Take a look at it.GWT DatePicker [ google.com ] See the example and the code.No HTML or Javascript whatsoever .
Only CSS needed for styling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really.
Take a look at it.GWT DatePicker [google.com]See the example and the code.No HTML or Javascript whatsoever.
Only CSS needed for styling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621255</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>characterZer0</author>
	<datestamp>1247064240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What makes it better?</p><p>(I am curious. I do not mean to challenge your statement. I have used neither Vista nor Windows 7.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What makes it better ?
( I am curious .
I do not mean to challenge your statement .
I have used neither Vista nor Windows 7 .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What makes it better?
(I am curious.
I do not mean to challenge your statement.
I have used neither Vista nor Windows 7.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620123</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625449</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>furby076</author>
	<datestamp>1247079240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Windows 7 is also going to cost $100-$200 USD. Google Chrome OS is going to be.....free.</p></div><p>$49.99 for the upgrade.<br> <br>

I'd like to see google chrome OS run your favorite high-end game.  What happens when you lose connection to the internet...enjoy working in your office environment...oh wait.<br> <br>

Chrome OS will have it's advantages - mainly netbooks - but it has a lot of hurdles.  1) can it accept mainstream programs that won't be in the cloud and 2) what happens when someone loses internet connection</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows 7 is also going to cost $ 100- $ 200 USD .
Google Chrome OS is going to be.....free. $ 49.99 for the upgrade .
I 'd like to see google chrome OS run your favorite high-end game .
What happens when you lose connection to the internet...enjoy working in your office environment...oh wait .
Chrome OS will have it 's advantages - mainly netbooks - but it has a lot of hurdles .
1 ) can it accept mainstream programs that wo n't be in the cloud and 2 ) what happens when someone loses internet connection</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows 7 is also going to cost $100-$200 USD.
Google Chrome OS is going to be.....free.$49.99 for the upgrade.
I'd like to see google chrome OS run your favorite high-end game.
What happens when you lose connection to the internet...enjoy working in your office environment...oh wait.
Chrome OS will have it's advantages - mainly netbooks - but it has a lot of hurdles.
1) can it accept mainstream programs that won't be in the cloud and 2) what happens when someone loses internet connection
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28645953</id>
	<title>TinFoilHat = On</title>
	<author>UK Boz</author>
	<datestamp>1247160300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Almost every big site these days seems to have a google analytics link so even if your not a google-a-file your browsing history is probably being recorded, even with cookies off it is not rocket science for a web site to log your ip address and put 2 and 2 together for when you do have to switch on cookies eg to do banking or read web mail. So we block all google web links (eg make them 127.0.0.1 in our hosts file) and I renew my routers ip address regularly and I'm invisible again.. but what if google owned the whole stack...

I for one prefer the browser and OS separate [ diddn't Microsoft get a small slap on the wrist for integrating the OS and browser? ]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Almost every big site these days seems to have a google analytics link so even if your not a google-a-file your browsing history is probably being recorded , even with cookies off it is not rocket science for a web site to log your ip address and put 2 and 2 together for when you do have to switch on cookies eg to do banking or read web mail .
So we block all google web links ( eg make them 127.0.0.1 in our hosts file ) and I renew my routers ip address regularly and I 'm invisible again.. but what if google owned the whole stack.. . I for one prefer the browser and OS separate [ didd n't Microsoft get a small slap on the wrist for integrating the OS and browser ?
]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Almost every big site these days seems to have a google analytics link so even if your not a google-a-file your browsing history is probably being recorded, even with cookies off it is not rocket science for a web site to log your ip address and put 2 and 2 together for when you do have to switch on cookies eg to do banking or read web mail.
So we block all google web links (eg make them 127.0.0.1 in our hosts file) and I renew my routers ip address regularly and I'm invisible again.. but what if google owned the whole stack...

I for one prefer the browser and OS separate [ diddn't Microsoft get a small slap on the wrist for integrating the OS and browser?
]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622631</id>
	<title>Re:The web is NOT the OS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247069340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you fail to realize the paradigm shift that is happening.  Web-apps suck, currently.  But thats because we went from Web 1.0 to "2.0", which was really just slapping Ajax into webpages and making all the fonts bigger.</p><p>But if "web apps" transform into first class clients on your desktop that consume web resources, I think that's a whole new ball game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you fail to realize the paradigm shift that is happening .
Web-apps suck , currently .
But thats because we went from Web 1.0 to " 2.0 " , which was really just slapping Ajax into webpages and making all the fonts bigger.But if " web apps " transform into first class clients on your desktop that consume web resources , I think that 's a whole new ball game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you fail to realize the paradigm shift that is happening.
Web-apps suck, currently.
But thats because we went from Web 1.0 to "2.0", which was really just slapping Ajax into webpages and making all the fonts bigger.But if "web apps" transform into first class clients on your desktop that consume web resources, I think that's a whole new ball game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619925</id>
	<title>fp</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247058900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BITCHES SAY WHAT</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BITCHES SAY WHAT</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BITCHES SAY WHAT</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625819</id>
	<title>Browser app != Cloud app</title>
	<author>Art3x</author>
	<datestamp>1247080500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can write a program that runs in a web browser but does not store its data in the cloud. Use HTML + JavaScript + Google Gears (or <a href="http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#offline" title="whatwg.org" rel="nofollow">HTML5 offline storage</a> [whatwg.org]), and you essentially have a Desktop app.</p><p>Yes, JavaScript is slower, because it is interpreted, not compiled. But the race among web browsers for faster JavaScript has closed the gap. Witness, <a href="http://www.chromeexperiments.com/" title="chromeexperiments.com" rel="nofollow">Chrome Expriments</a> [chromeexperiments.com] for some fun demos of the surprising things a browser can do.</p><p>Yes, JavaScript has been known to be hard to deal with. But that is almost completely because of different implementations by different browsers. Actually, the fault is almost entirely Internet Explorer. The difference between writing JavaScript for Chrome and Safari and Firefox is tiny compared to the difference between them and Internet Explorer. Even IE 7 and 8 continue to botch things that others have down.</p><p>But the jQuery library (and others) have smoothed a lot of those inconsistencies and given JavaScript programmers a more uniform API (thank you, those who have worked on these!).</p><p>JavaScript as a programming language is actually quite nice and elegant --- the way you write objects and arrays and the dot notation for calling methods and how everything is an object --- it looks a lot like Python.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can write a program that runs in a web browser but does not store its data in the cloud .
Use HTML + JavaScript + Google Gears ( or HTML5 offline storage [ whatwg.org ] ) , and you essentially have a Desktop app.Yes , JavaScript is slower , because it is interpreted , not compiled .
But the race among web browsers for faster JavaScript has closed the gap .
Witness , Chrome Expriments [ chromeexperiments.com ] for some fun demos of the surprising things a browser can do.Yes , JavaScript has been known to be hard to deal with .
But that is almost completely because of different implementations by different browsers .
Actually , the fault is almost entirely Internet Explorer .
The difference between writing JavaScript for Chrome and Safari and Firefox is tiny compared to the difference between them and Internet Explorer .
Even IE 7 and 8 continue to botch things that others have down.But the jQuery library ( and others ) have smoothed a lot of those inconsistencies and given JavaScript programmers a more uniform API ( thank you , those who have worked on these !
) .JavaScript as a programming language is actually quite nice and elegant --- the way you write objects and arrays and the dot notation for calling methods and how everything is an object --- it looks a lot like Python .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can write a program that runs in a web browser but does not store its data in the cloud.
Use HTML + JavaScript + Google Gears (or HTML5 offline storage [whatwg.org]), and you essentially have a Desktop app.Yes, JavaScript is slower, because it is interpreted, not compiled.
But the race among web browsers for faster JavaScript has closed the gap.
Witness, Chrome Expriments [chromeexperiments.com] for some fun demos of the surprising things a browser can do.Yes, JavaScript has been known to be hard to deal with.
But that is almost completely because of different implementations by different browsers.
Actually, the fault is almost entirely Internet Explorer.
The difference between writing JavaScript for Chrome and Safari and Firefox is tiny compared to the difference between them and Internet Explorer.
Even IE 7 and 8 continue to botch things that others have down.But the jQuery library (and others) have smoothed a lot of those inconsistencies and given JavaScript programmers a more uniform API (thank you, those who have worked on these!
).JavaScript as a programming language is actually quite nice and elegant --- the way you write objects and arrays and the dot notation for calling methods and how everything is an object --- it looks a lot like Python.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620225</id>
	<title>Mcdonaldsoft rival at last!</title>
	<author>yossarianuk</author>
	<datestamp>1247060520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm amazed at the amount of negative responses from Linux fans... This is what we have all been waiting for - isn't it ?? <br> <br>
No matter how scary google's power is the main things are that:-<br> <br>

1) They are using Linux <br>
2) They WILL make deals with computer manufacturers to get the OS preinstalled.<br>
3) They will opensource the code<br>
<br>
The only people who should fear this O.S is MS and existing Linux distros  - although the competation and the opensourcing of the code will benifit the entire community.<br> <br>
I'm sure MS will still be the best at saying 'Have a nice day' and flipping CD's.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm amazed at the amount of negative responses from Linux fans... This is what we have all been waiting for - is n't it ? ?
No matter how scary google 's power is the main things are that : - 1 ) They are using Linux 2 ) They WILL make deals with computer manufacturers to get the OS preinstalled .
3 ) They will opensource the code The only people who should fear this O.S is MS and existing Linux distros - although the competation and the opensourcing of the code will benifit the entire community .
I 'm sure MS will still be the best at saying 'Have a nice day ' and flipping CD 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm amazed at the amount of negative responses from Linux fans... This is what we have all been waiting for - isn't it ??
No matter how scary google's power is the main things are that:- 

1) They are using Linux 
2) They WILL make deals with computer manufacturers to get the OS preinstalled.
3) They will opensource the code

The only people who should fear this O.S is MS and existing Linux distros  - although the competation and the opensourcing of the code will benifit the entire community.
I'm sure MS will still be the best at saying 'Have a nice day' and flipping CD's.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621059</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247063820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>its main selling points are speed, simplicity and security</p></div><p>- Our chief selling point is speed... speed and security. Our two selling points are speed and security. And simplicity. Our *three* selling points are speed, simplicity and security... and openness...<br>Our *four*, no, *Amongst* our selling points are such diverse elements as, speed, simplicity...<br>Wait, I'll do this again. (exits)</p><p>- I didn't expect yet another Google Beta</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>its main selling points are speed , simplicity and security- Our chief selling point is speed... speed and security .
Our two selling points are speed and security .
And simplicity .
Our * three * selling points are speed , simplicity and security... and openness...Our * four * , no , * Amongst * our selling points are such diverse elements as , speed , simplicity...Wait , I 'll do this again .
( exits ) - I did n't expect yet another Google Beta</tokentext>
<sentencetext>its main selling points are speed, simplicity and security- Our chief selling point is speed... speed and security.
Our two selling points are speed and security.
And simplicity.
Our *three* selling points are speed, simplicity and security... and openness...Our *four*, no, *Amongst* our selling points are such diverse elements as, speed, simplicity...Wait, I'll do this again.
(exits)- I didn't expect yet another Google Beta
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620391</id>
	<title>Re:Yawn, another distro?</title>
	<author>AdamWeeden</author>
	<datestamp>1247061180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because IMHO, Linux "usability" vs. Windows is a chicken and egg problem that Google may be able to solve.  Linux has grown in leaps and bounds in terms of usability in the last decade.  Some stuff is more difficult to do in Linux than in Windows, but many things are easier.  The reason though why Linux doesn't gain more marketshare is because people can not bring the apps they are used to over when they switch.  This is the reason why I still use Windows.  Why don't companies port their apps to Linux?  Not enough marketshare.  So now we have a feedback loop where no one wins except Microsoft.  However, Google is in a strong position to convince companies to bring their software over and convince customers to switch to Linux using their market influence to act as collateral on the risk.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because IMHO , Linux " usability " vs. Windows is a chicken and egg problem that Google may be able to solve .
Linux has grown in leaps and bounds in terms of usability in the last decade .
Some stuff is more difficult to do in Linux than in Windows , but many things are easier .
The reason though why Linux does n't gain more marketshare is because people can not bring the apps they are used to over when they switch .
This is the reason why I still use Windows .
Why do n't companies port their apps to Linux ?
Not enough marketshare .
So now we have a feedback loop where no one wins except Microsoft .
However , Google is in a strong position to convince companies to bring their software over and convince customers to switch to Linux using their market influence to act as collateral on the risk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because IMHO, Linux "usability" vs. Windows is a chicken and egg problem that Google may be able to solve.
Linux has grown in leaps and bounds in terms of usability in the last decade.
Some stuff is more difficult to do in Linux than in Windows, but many things are easier.
The reason though why Linux doesn't gain more marketshare is because people can not bring the apps they are used to over when they switch.
This is the reason why I still use Windows.
Why don't companies port their apps to Linux?
Not enough marketshare.
So now we have a feedback loop where no one wins except Microsoft.
However, Google is in a strong position to convince companies to bring their software over and convince customers to switch to Linux using their market influence to act as collateral on the risk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621863</id>
	<title>Re:Pixel-level access?</title>
	<author>LDoggg\_</author>
	<datestamp>1247066640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What do they plan to do to grant pixel-level access?</p></div> </blockquote><p>
You can do this today with <a href="http://dojotoolkit.org/projects/dojox" title="dojotoolkit.org">dojox.gfx</a> [dojotoolkit.org] and it's completely open source.  You can use simple calls that are implemented differently on different browsers.  On firefox and others your drawings are rendered in SVG, in IE its VML, on others its HTML5's Canvas.<br>Canva's event model isn't as nicely integrated with the DOM as SVG and VML, but you can pretty much draw things cross platform.<br> <br>Pure javascript, no plugins required.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What do they plan to do to grant pixel-level access ?
You can do this today with dojox.gfx [ dojotoolkit.org ] and it 's completely open source .
You can use simple calls that are implemented differently on different browsers .
On firefox and others your drawings are rendered in SVG , in IE its VML , on others its HTML5 's Canvas.Canva 's event model is n't as nicely integrated with the DOM as SVG and VML , but you can pretty much draw things cross platform .
Pure javascript , no plugins required .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do they plan to do to grant pixel-level access?
You can do this today with dojox.gfx [dojotoolkit.org] and it's completely open source.
You can use simple calls that are implemented differently on different browsers.
On firefox and others your drawings are rendered in SVG, in IE its VML, on others its HTML5's Canvas.Canva's event model isn't as nicely integrated with the DOM as SVG and VML, but you can pretty much draw things cross platform.
Pure javascript, no plugins required.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620145</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620169</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>neumayr</author>
	<datestamp>1247060220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The summary says that this Chrome OS's "<b>main selling points</b> are speed, simplicity and security". That's different from focus.<br>
Of course, that doesn't mean that the "current No.1 OS" (and all others too, actually) doesn't deliver in all those areas - just one of them. Which, in most cases, would probably be simplicity, which in turn implies the other two.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary says that this Chrome OS 's " main selling points are speed , simplicity and security " .
That 's different from focus .
Of course , that does n't mean that the " current No.1 OS " ( and all others too , actually ) does n't deliver in all those areas - just one of them .
Which , in most cases , would probably be simplicity , which in turn implies the other two .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary says that this Chrome OS's "main selling points are speed, simplicity and security".
That's different from focus.
Of course, that doesn't mean that the "current No.1 OS" (and all others too, actually) doesn't deliver in all those areas - just one of them.
Which, in most cases, would probably be simplicity, which in turn implies the other two.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28624443</id>
	<title>Re:This recession is a good time to strike</title>
	<author>Zothar42</author>
	<datestamp>1247075760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft's pockets may be deeper, but if the open source developers of the world like what Google is up to, Google could potentially have way more resources available for its efforts than Microsoft does.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft 's pockets may be deeper , but if the open source developers of the world like what Google is up to , Google could potentially have way more resources available for its efforts than Microsoft does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft's pockets may be deeper, but if the open source developers of the world like what Google is up to, Google could potentially have way more resources available for its efforts than Microsoft does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620199</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623757</id>
	<title>Re:Stop Google before the damage is too serious</title>
	<author>The End Of Days</author>
	<datestamp>1247073360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was with you in your fight against the evil corporation until I got to the word "fragmentate" which exploded my head.  You lost a follower right there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was with you in your fight against the evil corporation until I got to the word " fragmentate " which exploded my head .
You lost a follower right there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was with you in your fight against the evil corporation until I got to the word "fragmentate" which exploded my head.
You lost a follower right there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620891</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623309</id>
	<title>Re:Automatically or automagically?</title>
	<author>jrothwell97</author>
	<datestamp>1247071740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's to stop them bundling an Apache and MySQL server, denying access to everyone but 127.0.0.1, and running the apps locally from that server?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's to stop them bundling an Apache and MySQL server , denying access to everyone but 127.0.0.1 , and running the apps locally from that server ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's to stop them bundling an Apache and MySQL server, denying access to everyone but 127.0.0.1, and running the apps locally from that server?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622289</id>
	<title>Web apps should be treated like desktop apps</title>
	<author>AlexanderTe</author>
	<datestamp>1247068140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would like to use Gmail just like I'm using any dekstop application. The favicon is already available, and the HTML title-tag says at least something about the title of the application. However, the favicon is often too small to appear in an application launcher that renders the icons around 48x48 pixels size.<br>
<br>
One solution is to make a database of web applications containing the address, the title "Gmail" and also a high quality icon. This is how an user would make an application available:<br>
<br>
    * Right click a 3x3-icon app launcher, it flips around, and the rest of the screen dims down<br>
    * Available applications are displayed on the sides of the screen and can be dragged onto the launcher--who needs the app store?<br>
<br>
I have two conserns for web applications at this point; privacy and low-latency access to the hardware for professional audio and video editing. While I'd love to use a web app to do something creative, I'd love it even more if I had complete control of my data. An encrypted cloud could solve this-or-it could be made possible to save the data locally.<br>
<br>
Recording audio requires direct access to the hardware, and that can't be done with your typical JavaScript, HTML and Ajax programming at this time. Maybe with Silverlight, but that's out of the question for obvious reasons. We will hopefully get to that day where will be possible, and I think streaming, caching and even distributing applications by using BitTorrent might eliminate the need for software upgrades.<br>
<br>
I see no reasons to separate how web applications of today and desktop applications are presented on the screen. Instead of living inside a tab in the browser, web applications should be treated like native desktop applications.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would like to use Gmail just like I 'm using any dekstop application .
The favicon is already available , and the HTML title-tag says at least something about the title of the application .
However , the favicon is often too small to appear in an application launcher that renders the icons around 48x48 pixels size .
One solution is to make a database of web applications containing the address , the title " Gmail " and also a high quality icon .
This is how an user would make an application available : * Right click a 3x3-icon app launcher , it flips around , and the rest of the screen dims down * Available applications are displayed on the sides of the screen and can be dragged onto the launcher--who needs the app store ?
I have two conserns for web applications at this point ; privacy and low-latency access to the hardware for professional audio and video editing .
While I 'd love to use a web app to do something creative , I 'd love it even more if I had complete control of my data .
An encrypted cloud could solve this-or-it could be made possible to save the data locally .
Recording audio requires direct access to the hardware , and that ca n't be done with your typical JavaScript , HTML and Ajax programming at this time .
Maybe with Silverlight , but that 's out of the question for obvious reasons .
We will hopefully get to that day where will be possible , and I think streaming , caching and even distributing applications by using BitTorrent might eliminate the need for software upgrades .
I see no reasons to separate how web applications of today and desktop applications are presented on the screen .
Instead of living inside a tab in the browser , web applications should be treated like native desktop applications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would like to use Gmail just like I'm using any dekstop application.
The favicon is already available, and the HTML title-tag says at least something about the title of the application.
However, the favicon is often too small to appear in an application launcher that renders the icons around 48x48 pixels size.
One solution is to make a database of web applications containing the address, the title "Gmail" and also a high quality icon.
This is how an user would make an application available:

    * Right click a 3x3-icon app launcher, it flips around, and the rest of the screen dims down
    * Available applications are displayed on the sides of the screen and can be dragged onto the launcher--who needs the app store?
I have two conserns for web applications at this point; privacy and low-latency access to the hardware for professional audio and video editing.
While I'd love to use a web app to do something creative, I'd love it even more if I had complete control of my data.
An encrypted cloud could solve this-or-it could be made possible to save the data locally.
Recording audio requires direct access to the hardware, and that can't be done with your typical JavaScript, HTML and Ajax programming at this time.
Maybe with Silverlight, but that's out of the question for obvious reasons.
We will hopefully get to that day where will be possible, and I think streaming, caching and even distributing applications by using BitTorrent might eliminate the need for software upgrades.
I see no reasons to separate how web applications of today and desktop applications are presented on the screen.
Instead of living inside a tab in the browser, web applications should be treated like native desktop applications.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623649</id>
	<title>Something is puzzling me...</title>
	<author>motang</author>
	<datestamp>1247072940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Looking forward to what it is going to be. But it seems like from what I read in ComputerWrold, ArsTechnica, and OSNews it seems like it will be online all the time, what if I am traveling and I am on the plane or in the middle of nowhere, then what? Am I going to be able to work as if there isn't a problem and then I can sync up when I do connect up to wifi? Those are some questions I have but I am more than sure it will be answered before it comes out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Looking forward to what it is going to be .
But it seems like from what I read in ComputerWrold , ArsTechnica , and OSNews it seems like it will be online all the time , what if I am traveling and I am on the plane or in the middle of nowhere , then what ?
Am I going to be able to work as if there is n't a problem and then I can sync up when I do connect up to wifi ?
Those are some questions I have but I am more than sure it will be answered before it comes out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looking forward to what it is going to be.
But it seems like from what I read in ComputerWrold, ArsTechnica, and OSNews it seems like it will be online all the time, what if I am traveling and I am on the plane or in the middle of nowhere, then what?
Am I going to be able to work as if there isn't a problem and then I can sync up when I do connect up to wifi?
Those are some questions I have but I am more than sure it will be answered before it comes out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621127</id>
	<title>New OS Show Stoppers</title>
	<author>debus</author>
	<datestamp>1247064000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this new OS will face the same hurdles that prevent me from running linux: No Itunes, no espn360 and no streaming from Netflix. </p><p>I would dump windows in a heartbeat if I could just get those running seemlessly on Linux.  And by seemlessly, I mean not having to run wine and jump through a bunch of hoops to get version X of this or that to run...</p><p>

Right now only Apple and Microsoft get you these things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this new OS will face the same hurdles that prevent me from running linux : No Itunes , no espn360 and no streaming from Netflix .
I would dump windows in a heartbeat if I could just get those running seemlessly on Linux .
And by seemlessly , I mean not having to run wine and jump through a bunch of hoops to get version X of this or that to run.. . Right now only Apple and Microsoft get you these things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this new OS will face the same hurdles that prevent me from running linux: No Itunes, no espn360 and no streaming from Netflix.
I would dump windows in a heartbeat if I could just get those running seemlessly on Linux.
And by seemlessly, I mean not having to run wine and jump through a bunch of hoops to get version X of this or that to run...

Right now only Apple and Microsoft get you these things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621371</id>
	<title>Re:Mcdonaldsoft rival at last!</title>
	<author>characterZer0</author>
	<datestamp>1247064720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they open source it, most of the existing Linux distributions will be happy to use the code.</p><p>Debian will still appeal to the purists.<br>Redhat will still appeal to businesses.<br>Gentoo will still appeal to the obsessive tinkerers.<br>Most distros have carved out a market.</p><p>Ubuntu is the only one I see being hurt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they open source it , most of the existing Linux distributions will be happy to use the code.Debian will still appeal to the purists.Redhat will still appeal to businesses.Gentoo will still appeal to the obsessive tinkerers.Most distros have carved out a market.Ubuntu is the only one I see being hurt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they open source it, most of the existing Linux distributions will be happy to use the code.Debian will still appeal to the purists.Redhat will still appeal to businesses.Gentoo will still appeal to the obsessive tinkerers.Most distros have carved out a market.Ubuntu is the only one I see being hurt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620241</id>
	<title>Re:Fear</title>
	<author>Mauzl</author>
	<datestamp>1247060580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its open source. Where is the risk?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its open source .
Where is the risk ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its open source.
Where is the risk?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619981</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620635</id>
	<title>Re:Competition is good, baby!</title>
	<author>MBGMorden</author>
	<datestamp>1247062260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any company with sense only really cares about making more money.  The trick is to find one that can make money by making you happy so that you willing give them the cash for a service you enjoy, rather than just siphoning it off because there's no other option for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any company with sense only really cares about making more money .
The trick is to find one that can make money by making you happy so that you willing give them the cash for a service you enjoy , rather than just siphoning it off because there 's no other option for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any company with sense only really cares about making more money.
The trick is to find one that can make money by making you happy so that you willing give them the cash for a service you enjoy, rather than just siphoning it off because there's no other option for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622829</id>
	<title>Re:Why would I want this?</title>
	<author>JerryQ</author>
	<datestamp>1247070000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the answer lies in the <b>"I"</b> in your question.<br> <br>
I believe there are millions of people out there (I teach a bunch of them for free on winter evenings) who only want a browser.  They want to browse, email, skype and maybe upload their pictures to a picasa like environment.  If they ever need word processing, google docs will be fine, if the connection is down, they'll happily wait.  they don't want to think about viruses, malware, blackhats etc etc.  They want an appliance, like their kettle or toaster, you switch it on, you use it (straight away).  <br> <br>
The boot sequence, the wait while anti virus messes around, and windows updates, are all irrelevant to these people, to these people modern computers are as easy to drive as a Model T Ford <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxb5R4rSgxE" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxb5R4rSgxE</a> [youtube.com]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.<br> <br>
<b>You</b> may quite understandably and reasonably, never use it or have use for it, but for a whole lot of people, this is just what they want.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the answer lies in the " I " in your question .
I believe there are millions of people out there ( I teach a bunch of them for free on winter evenings ) who only want a browser .
They want to browse , email , skype and maybe upload their pictures to a picasa like environment .
If they ever need word processing , google docs will be fine , if the connection is down , they 'll happily wait .
they do n't want to think about viruses , malware , blackhats etc etc .
They want an appliance , like their kettle or toaster , you switch it on , you use it ( straight away ) .
The boot sequence , the wait while anti virus messes around , and windows updates , are all irrelevant to these people , to these people modern computers are as easy to drive as a Model T Ford http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = rxb5R4rSgxE [ youtube.com ] .
You may quite understandably and reasonably , never use it or have use for it , but for a whole lot of people , this is just what they want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the answer lies in the "I" in your question.
I believe there are millions of people out there (I teach a bunch of them for free on winter evenings) who only want a browser.
They want to browse, email, skype and maybe upload their pictures to a picasa like environment.
If they ever need word processing, google docs will be fine, if the connection is down, they'll happily wait.
they don't want to think about viruses, malware, blackhats etc etc.
They want an appliance, like their kettle or toaster, you switch it on, you use it (straight away).
The boot sequence, the wait while anti virus messes around, and windows updates, are all irrelevant to these people, to these people modern computers are as easy to drive as a Model T Ford http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxb5R4rSgxE [youtube.com] .
You may quite understandably and reasonably, never use it or have use for it, but for a whole lot of people, this is just what they want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621349</id>
	<title>Re:Fear</title>
	<author>dirvine</author>
	<datestamp>1247064660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is an interesting issue, the OS may be OSS but if Google does not open source it's apps then the platform as delivered cannot be considered an OSS solution outside normal marketing doublethink. <p>
I imagine Google could easily Open Source most of it's apps though as there only access to the Google back end therefor not giving away any bigtable, map reduce, pagerank secrets etc. </p><p>
I am interested in how it can be made malware and virus free unless it's a read only OS and therefor either storing all your cache, data either in RAM and loosing it, or on Google servers or similar ? That could be a privacy nighmare for them but I would assume Google are way smarter than that and can employ some cool technologies in this privacy area to. Meanwhile has anyone an idea how they can be malware, virus free ? (you can get memory resident viruses per session even on a read only OS and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... (add your own and also<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... here)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is an interesting issue , the OS may be OSS but if Google does not open source it 's apps then the platform as delivered can not be considered an OSS solution outside normal marketing doublethink .
I imagine Google could easily Open Source most of it 's apps though as there only access to the Google back end therefor not giving away any bigtable , map reduce , pagerank secrets etc .
I am interested in how it can be made malware and virus free unless it 's a read only OS and therefor either storing all your cache , data either in RAM and loosing it , or on Google servers or similar ?
That could be a privacy nighmare for them but I would assume Google are way smarter than that and can employ some cool technologies in this privacy area to .
Meanwhile has anyone an idea how they can be malware , virus free ?
( you can get memory resident viruses per session even on a read only OS and ... ( add your own and also ... here )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is an interesting issue, the OS may be OSS but if Google does not open source it's apps then the platform as delivered cannot be considered an OSS solution outside normal marketing doublethink.
I imagine Google could easily Open Source most of it's apps though as there only access to the Google back end therefor not giving away any bigtable, map reduce, pagerank secrets etc.
I am interested in how it can be made malware and virus free unless it's a read only OS and therefor either storing all your cache, data either in RAM and loosing it, or on Google servers or similar ?
That could be a privacy nighmare for them but I would assume Google are way smarter than that and can employ some cool technologies in this privacy area to.
Meanwhile has anyone an idea how they can be malware, virus free ?
(you can get memory resident viruses per session even on a read only OS and ... (add your own and also ... here)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620617</id>
	<title>Re:The web is NOT the OS</title>
	<author>mcwop</author>
	<datestamp>1247062200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which begs the point does this OS need an internet connection to be useful? While I think ubiquitous web connections will someday be here, we are not there yet. As a result, I need my mobile computer to be able to work offline. Not clear to me if that is the case with this OS. Seems odd that Google isn't just trying to use Android or Moblin with Chrome - maybe they are doing that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which begs the point does this OS need an internet connection to be useful ?
While I think ubiquitous web connections will someday be here , we are not there yet .
As a result , I need my mobile computer to be able to work offline .
Not clear to me if that is the case with this OS .
Seems odd that Google is n't just trying to use Android or Moblin with Chrome - maybe they are doing that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which begs the point does this OS need an internet connection to be useful?
While I think ubiquitous web connections will someday be here, we are not there yet.
As a result, I need my mobile computer to be able to work offline.
Not clear to me if that is the case with this OS.
Seems odd that Google isn't just trying to use Android or Moblin with Chrome - maybe they are doing that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620275</id>
	<title>Re:Fear</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247060700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean like Microsoft.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean like Microsoft.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean like Microsoft.....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619981</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620471</id>
	<title>Can't fight the status quo</title>
	<author>deuterium</author>
	<datestamp>1247061600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Their only hope for mass adoption is in getting this onto a lot of new computers. Most people aren't going to install this on a system they already have up and running. Given the blanket licensing agreements Microsoft has with most of the big OEMs, this may be impossible. Their best bet is in the ARM camp.</p><p>Anyone else kinda wish they'd actually made an entirely new OS?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Their only hope for mass adoption is in getting this onto a lot of new computers .
Most people are n't going to install this on a system they already have up and running .
Given the blanket licensing agreements Microsoft has with most of the big OEMs , this may be impossible .
Their best bet is in the ARM camp.Anyone else kinda wish they 'd actually made an entirely new OS ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their only hope for mass adoption is in getting this onto a lot of new computers.
Most people aren't going to install this on a system they already have up and running.
Given the blanket licensing agreements Microsoft has with most of the big OEMs, this may be impossible.
Their best bet is in the ARM camp.Anyone else kinda wish they'd actually made an entirely new OS?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620449</id>
	<title>But surely...</title>
	<author>curmi</author>
	<datestamp>1247061480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...this means the OS will be forever in "beta"...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...this means the OS will be forever in " beta " .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...this means the OS will be forever in "beta"...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622917</id>
	<title>Windows App Compatibility?</title>
	<author>Goody</author>
	<datestamp>1247070240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I haven't seen any mention of Windows application compatibility.  This OS is going to need that if Google really intends for it to compete with Windows, otherwise it's going to be just another Linux distribution (Ubuntu on steroids with a big company behind it) or a niche Netbook/cheap laptop OS that can just check email and surf the web (ummm....Android on steroids?).  To do the level of Windows application compatibility and integration they'll need to compete, I think they'll need to fork Wine and make development move faster than it has over the years and integrate it tightly to the OS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't seen any mention of Windows application compatibility .
This OS is going to need that if Google really intends for it to compete with Windows , otherwise it 's going to be just another Linux distribution ( Ubuntu on steroids with a big company behind it ) or a niche Netbook/cheap laptop OS that can just check email and surf the web ( ummm....Android on steroids ? ) .
To do the level of Windows application compatibility and integration they 'll need to compete , I think they 'll need to fork Wine and make development move faster than it has over the years and integrate it tightly to the OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't seen any mention of Windows application compatibility.
This OS is going to need that if Google really intends for it to compete with Windows, otherwise it's going to be just another Linux distribution (Ubuntu on steroids with a big company behind it) or a niche Netbook/cheap laptop OS that can just check email and surf the web (ummm....Android on steroids?).
To do the level of Windows application compatibility and integration they'll need to compete, I think they'll need to fork Wine and make development move faster than it has over the years and integrate it tightly to the OS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620341</id>
	<title>Re:The web is NOT the OS</title>
	<author>dintech</author>
	<datestamp>1247061000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given Google's history, I'm betting it will run Java apps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given Google 's history , I 'm betting it will run Java apps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given Google's history, I'm betting it will run Java apps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621641</id>
	<title>Re:The web is NOT the OS</title>
	<author>Itchyeyes</author>
	<datestamp>1247065920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The web is not the OS. The web is...the web. I do NOT want everything to be a goddamn web app. Web apps work very well for certain applications, and Google has shown that they can push the limits with dynamic content, but that does not mean the web application is an appropriate model for every damned application.</p></div><p>Good for you.  I'm certain that Windows, OSX, or anyone of the dozens of Linux distros out there will serve you well for years to come.  For the rest of us who already spend a good 3/4+ of our time using a browser, an announcement of an OS that might move beyond paradigms established well over 20 years ago, let alone from a company that actually has the resources to pull it off, is generally something to sit up and take note of.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The web is not the OS .
The web is...the web .
I do NOT want everything to be a goddamn web app .
Web apps work very well for certain applications , and Google has shown that they can push the limits with dynamic content , but that does not mean the web application is an appropriate model for every damned application.Good for you .
I 'm certain that Windows , OSX , or anyone of the dozens of Linux distros out there will serve you well for years to come .
For the rest of us who already spend a good 3/4 + of our time using a browser , an announcement of an OS that might move beyond paradigms established well over 20 years ago , let alone from a company that actually has the resources to pull it off , is generally something to sit up and take note of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The web is not the OS.
The web is...the web.
I do NOT want everything to be a goddamn web app.
Web apps work very well for certain applications, and Google has shown that they can push the limits with dynamic content, but that does not mean the web application is an appropriate model for every damned application.Good for you.
I'm certain that Windows, OSX, or anyone of the dozens of Linux distros out there will serve you well for years to come.
For the rest of us who already spend a good 3/4+ of our time using a browser, an announcement of an OS that might move beyond paradigms established well over 20 years ago, let alone from a company that actually has the resources to pull it off, is generally something to sit up and take note of.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622445</id>
	<title>Google + Unix = ...</title>
	<author>umundane</author>
	<datestamp>1247068680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wouldn't "Goonix" be a better name?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't " Goonix " be a better name ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't "Goonix" be a better name?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28628243</id>
	<title>Re:Netscape all over again.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247047020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Correct, Netscape had rumors of working on a Netscape OS, which would have cut Microsoft out at the knees.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Correct , Netscape had rumors of working on a Netscape OS , which would have cut Microsoft out at the knees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correct, Netscape had rumors of working on a Netscape OS, which would have cut Microsoft out at the knees.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620705</id>
	<title>Re:Competition is good, baby!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247062500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>google dont care about Linux</p></div></blockquote><p>So?</p><blockquote><div><p>its only a means to earn more $$$ and gain more 00 (thats eyeballs)</p></div></blockquote><p>Will someone please explain "capitalism" and "google is a public corporation" to this young man?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>google dont care about LinuxSo ? its only a means to earn more $ $ $ and gain more 00 ( thats eyeballs ) Will someone please explain " capitalism " and " google is a public corporation " to this young man ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>google dont care about LinuxSo?its only a means to earn more $$$ and gain more 00 (thats eyeballs)Will someone please explain "capitalism" and "google is a public corporation" to this young man?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28628113</id>
	<title>Re:The web is NOT the OS</title>
	<author>Nerdposeur</author>
	<datestamp>1247046420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>These days it seems absurd to talk about running Photoshop or AutoCAD through a web browser... But in another dozen years it may make perfect sense</p></div></blockquote><p>Maybe. But I'd bet that the most computation-expensive apps will always run locally. It just doesn't make sense to add the extra round-trip to a server.</p><p>Now, maybe they'll run locally <i>inside the browser</i>, at the rate the Javascript engines are speeding up. We'll see.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These days it seems absurd to talk about running Photoshop or AutoCAD through a web browser... But in another dozen years it may make perfect senseMaybe .
But I 'd bet that the most computation-expensive apps will always run locally .
It just does n't make sense to add the extra round-trip to a server.Now , maybe they 'll run locally inside the browser , at the rate the Javascript engines are speeding up .
We 'll see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These days it seems absurd to talk about running Photoshop or AutoCAD through a web browser... But in another dozen years it may make perfect senseMaybe.
But I'd bet that the most computation-expensive apps will always run locally.
It just doesn't make sense to add the extra round-trip to a server.Now, maybe they'll run locally inside the browser, at the rate the Javascript engines are speeding up.
We'll see.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620455</id>
	<title>Re:Automatically or automagically?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247061540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Depends on your definition of "automatically". From what I hear, there is this little prerequisite called "internet access".</p></div><p>Correct, but Google is betting the farm on almost ubiquitous internet access. Gears and HTML5 allow offline modes, but if you're planning to be offline for long periods, I don't think you're part of their market.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Depends on your definition of " automatically " .
From what I hear , there is this little prerequisite called " internet access " .Correct , but Google is betting the farm on almost ubiquitous internet access .
Gears and HTML5 allow offline modes , but if you 're planning to be offline for long periods , I do n't think you 're part of their market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depends on your definition of "automatically".
From what I hear, there is this little prerequisite called "internet access".Correct, but Google is betting the farm on almost ubiquitous internet access.
Gears and HTML5 allow offline modes, but if you're planning to be offline for long periods, I don't think you're part of their market.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620549</id>
	<title>Re:Yawn, another distro?</title>
	<author>Johnny Loves Linux</author>
	<datestamp>1247061960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;How is this going to be different from other Linux distros and associated GUI revamp projects that have sprung up promising "we're going to be better than Windows! Really!" over the years?</p><p>The difference is this: Joe Six Pack has never heard of Ubuntu much less Linux. Everybody on the planet who has internet access knows about Google. So if google announces the creation of something called.... an...Operating...System(tm), then the Joe Six Packs pay attention. Never mind that it's the same OS that us Linux users have been using for years. There's nothing wrong with Linux. It's getting Joe Six Pack to change his frame of reference to realize that he's much better off with Linux that is the real problem. And it's going to take an entity like google to accomplish that small miracle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; How is this going to be different from other Linux distros and associated GUI revamp projects that have sprung up promising " we 're going to be better than Windows !
Really ! " over the years ? The difference is this : Joe Six Pack has never heard of Ubuntu much less Linux .
Everybody on the planet who has internet access knows about Google .
So if google announces the creation of something called.... an...Operating...System ( tm ) , then the Joe Six Packs pay attention .
Never mind that it 's the same OS that us Linux users have been using for years .
There 's nothing wrong with Linux .
It 's getting Joe Six Pack to change his frame of reference to realize that he 's much better off with Linux that is the real problem .
And it 's going to take an entity like google to accomplish that small miracle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;How is this going to be different from other Linux distros and associated GUI revamp projects that have sprung up promising "we're going to be better than Windows!
Really!" over the years?The difference is this: Joe Six Pack has never heard of Ubuntu much less Linux.
Everybody on the planet who has internet access knows about Google.
So if google announces the creation of something called.... an...Operating...System(tm), then the Joe Six Packs pay attention.
Never mind that it's the same OS that us Linux users have been using for years.
There's nothing wrong with Linux.
It's getting Joe Six Pack to change his frame of reference to realize that he's much better off with Linux that is the real problem.
And it's going to take an entity like google to accomplish that small miracle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623101</id>
	<title>Just what I needed!</title>
	<author>Jeema</author>
	<datestamp>1247070900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A 21st century dumb terminal!

Now if you'll excuse me I have to go.  I'm expecting a call from 1975...</htmltext>
<tokenext>A 21st century dumb terminal !
Now if you 'll excuse me I have to go .
I 'm expecting a call from 1975.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A 21st century dumb terminal!
Now if you'll excuse me I have to go.
I'm expecting a call from 1975...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28624205</id>
	<title>WoW</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247075100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>  Let me welcome Google on behalf of the millions waiting for this from quite a long time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me welcome Google on behalf of the millions waiting for this from quite a long time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  Let me welcome Google on behalf of the millions waiting for this from quite a long time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619965</id>
	<title>Huh?</title>
	<author>GF678</author>
	<datestamp>1247059200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>its main selling points are speed, simplicity and security -- which kind of implies that the current No.1 OS doesn't deliver in these areas!</p></div></blockquote><p>Chrome OS focusing on speed, simplicity and security does not imply Windows cannot deliver in these areas. It's just an alternative operating system, and has yet to prove itself. The summary sound rather, well, dumb.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>its main selling points are speed , simplicity and security -- which kind of implies that the current No.1 OS does n't deliver in these areas ! Chrome OS focusing on speed , simplicity and security does not imply Windows can not deliver in these areas .
It 's just an alternative operating system , and has yet to prove itself .
The summary sound rather , well , dumb .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>its main selling points are speed, simplicity and security -- which kind of implies that the current No.1 OS doesn't deliver in these areas!Chrome OS focusing on speed, simplicity and security does not imply Windows cannot deliver in these areas.
It's just an alternative operating system, and has yet to prove itself.
The summary sound rather, well, dumb.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620219</id>
	<title>Re:Competition is good, baby!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247060460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a valid point in there somewhere, but you'd have to dig for it with a pickaxe. You get modded -1 Troll, and also -1 Illiterate. Digg misses you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a valid point in there somewhere , but you 'd have to dig for it with a pickaxe .
You get modded -1 Troll , and also -1 Illiterate .
Digg misses you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a valid point in there somewhere, but you'd have to dig for it with a pickaxe.
You get modded -1 Troll, and also -1 Illiterate.
Digg misses you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623093</id>
	<title>Re:Mcdonaldsoft rival at last!</title>
	<author>SpinyNorman</author>
	<datestamp>1247070900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This appears to have little to do with Linux other than the fact it uses the Linux kernel &amp; drivers.</p><p>From the Google announcement it uses a "new windowing system" (sounds rather like Android, although they it's something different).</p><p><a href="http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html" title="blogspot.com">http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html</a> [blogspot.com]</p><p>There's no mention of it being based on X (I'd assume it's not), Qt, or GTK, so there's no reason to assume that it'll support existing GUI based Linux apps, or Linux apps at all for that matter.</p><p>They may support some form of "native" apps as opposed to web-based ones using standard web-based standards that will also work in other browsers, but I'll bet that it's only in some highly restricted constrained environment given the new windowing system and security claims. Maybe you can write native apps using Java and some new Google GUI/etc APIs (or maybe they just ported whatever Java uses for GUI nowadays to sit on top of their own API). Given that they are targetting ARM as well as x86 I doubt there's any native code support.</p><p>What's the betting there'll be an app store for it too.</p><p>I don't think this is Google-branded Linux for the masses - it's sounds more like Android. Probably a managed code environment using a brand new (or Android?) windowing system, that happens to run on the Linux kernel. Heck, it may be JUST for web/browser-based apps, although I doubt it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This appears to have little to do with Linux other than the fact it uses the Linux kernel &amp; drivers.From the Google announcement it uses a " new windowing system " ( sounds rather like Android , although they it 's something different ) .http : //googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html [ blogspot.com ] There 's no mention of it being based on X ( I 'd assume it 's not ) , Qt , or GTK , so there 's no reason to assume that it 'll support existing GUI based Linux apps , or Linux apps at all for that matter.They may support some form of " native " apps as opposed to web-based ones using standard web-based standards that will also work in other browsers , but I 'll bet that it 's only in some highly restricted constrained environment given the new windowing system and security claims .
Maybe you can write native apps using Java and some new Google GUI/etc APIs ( or maybe they just ported whatever Java uses for GUI nowadays to sit on top of their own API ) .
Given that they are targetting ARM as well as x86 I doubt there 's any native code support.What 's the betting there 'll be an app store for it too.I do n't think this is Google-branded Linux for the masses - it 's sounds more like Android .
Probably a managed code environment using a brand new ( or Android ?
) windowing system , that happens to run on the Linux kernel .
Heck , it may be JUST for web/browser-based apps , although I doubt it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This appears to have little to do with Linux other than the fact it uses the Linux kernel &amp; drivers.From the Google announcement it uses a "new windowing system" (sounds rather like Android, although they it's something different).http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html [blogspot.com]There's no mention of it being based on X (I'd assume it's not), Qt, or GTK, so there's no reason to assume that it'll support existing GUI based Linux apps, or Linux apps at all for that matter.They may support some form of "native" apps as opposed to web-based ones using standard web-based standards that will also work in other browsers, but I'll bet that it's only in some highly restricted constrained environment given the new windowing system and security claims.
Maybe you can write native apps using Java and some new Google GUI/etc APIs (or maybe they just ported whatever Java uses for GUI nowadays to sit on top of their own API).
Given that they are targetting ARM as well as x86 I doubt there's any native code support.What's the betting there'll be an app store for it too.I don't think this is Google-branded Linux for the masses - it's sounds more like Android.
Probably a managed code environment using a brand new (or Android?
) windowing system, that happens to run on the Linux kernel.
Heck, it may be JUST for web/browser-based apps, although I doubt it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620599</id>
	<title>Re:The web is NOT the OS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247062140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So don't buy it and don't use it then.  Other people do not hold your sentiments, but luckily for you there are plenty of other options.  Unless you'd rather bitch that you want an OS made by Google and then complain that its for netbooks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So do n't buy it and do n't use it then .
Other people do not hold your sentiments , but luckily for you there are plenty of other options .
Unless you 'd rather bitch that you want an OS made by Google and then complain that its for netbooks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So don't buy it and don't use it then.
Other people do not hold your sentiments, but luckily for you there are plenty of other options.
Unless you'd rather bitch that you want an OS made by Google and then complain that its for netbooks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621677</id>
	<title>Re:Fast web OS needed!</title>
	<author>somenickname</author>
	<datestamp>1247065980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On a side note: I can't wait until a new OS finally achieves the startup times of the good old trusy Commodore 64.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div><p>I've never understood the fascination with startup times when suspend/resume is such a more useful alternative.  However, Moblin does indeed boot in 5 seconds (even in a VM) and, I will admit, it's actually pretty cool to see it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On a side note : I ca n't wait until a new OS finally achieves the startup times of the good old trusy Commodore 64. : - ) I 've never understood the fascination with startup times when suspend/resume is such a more useful alternative .
However , Moblin does indeed boot in 5 seconds ( even in a VM ) and , I will admit , it 's actually pretty cool to see it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On a side note: I can't wait until a new OS finally achieves the startup times of the good old trusy Commodore 64. :-)I've never understood the fascination with startup times when suspend/resume is such a more useful alternative.
However, Moblin does indeed boot in 5 seconds (even in a VM) and, I will admit, it's actually pretty cool to see it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28689367</id>
	<title>Criticism on Googl'e security claims</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247578980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First criticism on Google's claim that their the end-users of their new OS will not be bother by viruses and malware:<br><a href="http://www.googleblogos.com/security/security-guru-calls-chrome-oss-security-claims-idiotic/" title="googleblogos.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.googleblogos.com/</a> [googleblogos.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First criticism on Google 's claim that their the end-users of their new OS will not be bother by viruses and malware : http : //www.googleblogos.com/ [ googleblogos.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First criticism on Google's claim that their the end-users of their new OS will not be bother by viruses and malware:http://www.googleblogos.com/ [googleblogos.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623273</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Buelldozer</author>
	<datestamp>1247071560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try using a Cisco softphone with a Logitech headset on Win7. Your enjoyment will rapidly decrease.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try using a Cisco softphone with a Logitech headset on Win7 .
Your enjoyment will rapidly decrease .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try using a Cisco softphone with a Logitech headset on Win7.
Your enjoyment will rapidly decrease.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620123</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28627021</id>
	<title>Re:The web is NOT the OS</title>
	<author>DarksideDaveOR</author>
	<datestamp>1247084700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's the future, simply because it's easier.  Deploying a web app is quick, easy, and requires surprisingly little expertise, and most of the time, companies assume it's a short term solution, so the inevitable failure points can safely be ignored.</p><p>My work is essentially glorified web development (and in c#/asp.net, too...  don't judge me).  I have enough programming training to be aware of the advantages of developing "real" applications, but they take longer and require more expertise, and with the web option available and easier, it's the route more and more applications will be taking.</p><p>If you want to "fix" this problem, you're going to have to invent some kind of interpreter that can take web apps and make them into something else, without affecting how they work at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the future , simply because it 's easier .
Deploying a web app is quick , easy , and requires surprisingly little expertise , and most of the time , companies assume it 's a short term solution , so the inevitable failure points can safely be ignored.My work is essentially glorified web development ( and in c # /asp.net , too... do n't judge me ) .
I have enough programming training to be aware of the advantages of developing " real " applications , but they take longer and require more expertise , and with the web option available and easier , it 's the route more and more applications will be taking.If you want to " fix " this problem , you 're going to have to invent some kind of interpreter that can take web apps and make them into something else , without affecting how they work at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the future, simply because it's easier.
Deploying a web app is quick, easy, and requires surprisingly little expertise, and most of the time, companies assume it's a short term solution, so the inevitable failure points can safely be ignored.My work is essentially glorified web development (and in c#/asp.net, too...  don't judge me).
I have enough programming training to be aware of the advantages of developing "real" applications, but they take longer and require more expertise, and with the web option available and easier, it's the route more and more applications will be taking.If you want to "fix" this problem, you're going to have to invent some kind of interpreter that can take web apps and make them into something else, without affecting how they work at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619981</id>
	<title>Fear</title>
	<author>chord.wav</author>
	<datestamp>1247059320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wouldn't run an OS from a company who's business is knowing your consumer preferences, but suit for yourself. I'm sure there's a positive side of this story too, but I let that to another user.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't run an OS from a company who 's business is knowing your consumer preferences , but suit for yourself .
I 'm sure there 's a positive side of this story too , but I let that to another user .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't run an OS from a company who's business is knowing your consumer preferences, but suit for yourself.
I'm sure there's a positive side of this story too, but I let that to another user.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28632305</id>
	<title>Re:Why would I want this?</title>
	<author>BlackSmithNZ</author>
	<datestamp>1247073420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"This is a Linux distro that can't run any non-google-SDK software"</p> </div><p>
&nbsp; </p><p>I think you missed the whole point of the web thing.</p><p>
&nbsp; </p><p>Don't like google search and really want to you yahoo, bing/live/whatever today? Go ahead and bookmark a new URL and use it.<br>Don't like gmail; there are plenty of alternatives.<br>Don't like google apps? Go ahead and use Zoho or whatever you like.</p><p>
&nbsp; </p><p>You can run any non-google web-based software you want; including my companies analysis software that used to be restricted to Windows desktops, but now runs on all OS's thanks to our move to the web.</p><p>
&nbsp; </p><p>Hell of a lot easier to open a different URL than installing VM's or re-booting into another OS, to run some software that happens to use another API.</p><p>
&nbsp; </p><p>
&nbsp; In fact I really like the idea of having a basic Linux kernel (free with the hardware) that boots up ChromeOS from flash in a few seconds and allows me to quickly and securely browse, do webmail etc; a big percentage of what most people use their computers for on a regular basis. My kids for instance play flash based games &amp; pretty much only use our Windows XP home computers as a dedicated Firefox launcher - though XP gets in the way when it takes 2 minutes to wake up &amp; be ready to use.</p><p>
&nbsp; </p><p>At the same time, I still need the ability to boot different (VMs?) off that kernel, so when I need native software for speed/richness of UI/security, I can fire up instances of Ubuntu/Eclipse for dev work, or Windows/Photoshop etc.  And if a zero day exploit takes down ChromeOS, all my work environments are safe.</p><p>
&nbsp; </p><p>For others like my parents, who never back up email, photos or buy/install software other than anti-virus crap that slows their machine to a crawl I would love to get them to run Chrome of something that gives them what they need &amp; nothing more or less.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" This is a Linux distro that ca n't run any non-google-SDK software "   I think you missed the whole point of the web thing .
  Do n't like google search and really want to you yahoo , bing/live/whatever today ?
Go ahead and bookmark a new URL and use it.Do n't like gmail ; there are plenty of alternatives.Do n't like google apps ?
Go ahead and use Zoho or whatever you like .
  You can run any non-google web-based software you want ; including my companies analysis software that used to be restricted to Windows desktops , but now runs on all OS 's thanks to our move to the web .
  Hell of a lot easier to open a different URL than installing VM 's or re-booting into another OS , to run some software that happens to use another API .
    In fact I really like the idea of having a basic Linux kernel ( free with the hardware ) that boots up ChromeOS from flash in a few seconds and allows me to quickly and securely browse , do webmail etc ; a big percentage of what most people use their computers for on a regular basis .
My kids for instance play flash based games &amp; pretty much only use our Windows XP home computers as a dedicated Firefox launcher - though XP gets in the way when it takes 2 minutes to wake up &amp; be ready to use .
  At the same time , I still need the ability to boot different ( VMs ?
) off that kernel , so when I need native software for speed/richness of UI/security , I can fire up instances of Ubuntu/Eclipse for dev work , or Windows/Photoshop etc .
And if a zero day exploit takes down ChromeOS , all my work environments are safe .
  For others like my parents , who never back up email , photos or buy/install software other than anti-virus crap that slows their machine to a crawl I would love to get them to run Chrome of something that gives them what they need &amp; nothing more or less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"This is a Linux distro that can't run any non-google-SDK software" 
  I think you missed the whole point of the web thing.
  Don't like google search and really want to you yahoo, bing/live/whatever today?
Go ahead and bookmark a new URL and use it.Don't like gmail; there are plenty of alternatives.Don't like google apps?
Go ahead and use Zoho or whatever you like.
  You can run any non-google web-based software you want; including my companies analysis software that used to be restricted to Windows desktops, but now runs on all OS's thanks to our move to the web.
  Hell of a lot easier to open a different URL than installing VM's or re-booting into another OS, to run some software that happens to use another API.
  
  In fact I really like the idea of having a basic Linux kernel (free with the hardware) that boots up ChromeOS from flash in a few seconds and allows me to quickly and securely browse, do webmail etc; a big percentage of what most people use their computers for on a regular basis.
My kids for instance play flash based games &amp; pretty much only use our Windows XP home computers as a dedicated Firefox launcher - though XP gets in the way when it takes 2 minutes to wake up &amp; be ready to use.
  At the same time, I still need the ability to boot different (VMs?
) off that kernel, so when I need native software for speed/richness of UI/security, I can fire up instances of Ubuntu/Eclipse for dev work, or Windows/Photoshop etc.
And if a zero day exploit takes down ChromeOS, all my work environments are safe.
  For others like my parents, who never back up email, photos or buy/install software other than anti-virus crap that slows their machine to a crawl I would love to get them to run Chrome of something that gives them what they need &amp; nothing more or less.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620209</id>
	<title>no one provides speed at the low end</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1247060400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The emphasis for the past decade or so has been to deploy increasingly complex OS that can take advantage of the increasingly capable hardware.  Both MS Windows and Mac OS X require a microprocessor in the 1.5 GHz range and 2 GB if ram and graphics coprocessor to run well.   The problem is that computers from 5 years ago is good enough for the average person, so there is some reluctance to spend the money for these machines.  So MS tries to continue the trend with a MS Vista, and people rebelled.  Is the average person going to spend a couple hundred dollars more to get a prettier UI when XP seems to work just well.  Mac OS X has gotten away with it because Apple are supposed to be expensive, and Apple has spent the past several years optimizing, so it runs well on older hardware.  However, OS X for iPhone is not so good, and does not run well on the first iPhone.
<p>
So google is doing something different.  Build an OS from scratch that does not assume huge available horsepower.  This will be the future for the average consumer.  I know that everyone will say that the corporate market wants MS, and the employees want a similar machine, but I have a lot of people buy their machine for their use, not to do work.  And if the Apps are free, then MS lose their advantage through corporate licensing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The emphasis for the past decade or so has been to deploy increasingly complex OS that can take advantage of the increasingly capable hardware .
Both MS Windows and Mac OS X require a microprocessor in the 1.5 GHz range and 2 GB if ram and graphics coprocessor to run well .
The problem is that computers from 5 years ago is good enough for the average person , so there is some reluctance to spend the money for these machines .
So MS tries to continue the trend with a MS Vista , and people rebelled .
Is the average person going to spend a couple hundred dollars more to get a prettier UI when XP seems to work just well .
Mac OS X has gotten away with it because Apple are supposed to be expensive , and Apple has spent the past several years optimizing , so it runs well on older hardware .
However , OS X for iPhone is not so good , and does not run well on the first iPhone .
So google is doing something different .
Build an OS from scratch that does not assume huge available horsepower .
This will be the future for the average consumer .
I know that everyone will say that the corporate market wants MS , and the employees want a similar machine , but I have a lot of people buy their machine for their use , not to do work .
And if the Apps are free , then MS lose their advantage through corporate licensing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The emphasis for the past decade or so has been to deploy increasingly complex OS that can take advantage of the increasingly capable hardware.
Both MS Windows and Mac OS X require a microprocessor in the 1.5 GHz range and 2 GB if ram and graphics coprocessor to run well.
The problem is that computers from 5 years ago is good enough for the average person, so there is some reluctance to spend the money for these machines.
So MS tries to continue the trend with a MS Vista, and people rebelled.
Is the average person going to spend a couple hundred dollars more to get a prettier UI when XP seems to work just well.
Mac OS X has gotten away with it because Apple are supposed to be expensive, and Apple has spent the past several years optimizing, so it runs well on older hardware.
However, OS X for iPhone is not so good, and does not run well on the first iPhone.
So google is doing something different.
Build an OS from scratch that does not assume huge available horsepower.
This will be the future for the average consumer.
I know that everyone will say that the corporate market wants MS, and the employees want a similar machine, but I have a lot of people buy their machine for their use, not to do work.
And if the Apps are free, then MS lose their advantage through corporate licensing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621705</id>
	<title>Re:The web is NOT the OS</title>
	<author>Raffaello</author>
	<datestamp>1247066040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, things move on. But please be aware that there is a whole class of applications that are simply inappropriate for cloud computing. For example, try any of the existing web based image editors on a large image (the sort a professional photographer routinely works with 35MB+). Although the server on the other end of the connection might be able to do the requested image manipulation, transferring a full screen window's worth of the transformed data (~4MB) over the network means this app is inherently slow compared to running it locally on even a laptop of modest speed (where displaying a full screen window from a buffer is essentially instantaneous).</p><p>It would seem that the logical, non-hype direction in which to move is a hybrid where some computing, the results of which are *not* large data sets, would be done remotely (i.e., in the "cloud") while computing which results in large data that must be displayed on the client (e.g., large image editing) is done locally. This suggests that augmenting existing desktop platforms with more cloud capabilities, or augmenting existing web-app platforms with local computing capabilities would be the proper superset that covers all bases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , things move on .
But please be aware that there is a whole class of applications that are simply inappropriate for cloud computing .
For example , try any of the existing web based image editors on a large image ( the sort a professional photographer routinely works with 35MB + ) .
Although the server on the other end of the connection might be able to do the requested image manipulation , transferring a full screen window 's worth of the transformed data ( ~ 4MB ) over the network means this app is inherently slow compared to running it locally on even a laptop of modest speed ( where displaying a full screen window from a buffer is essentially instantaneous ) .It would seem that the logical , non-hype direction in which to move is a hybrid where some computing , the results of which are * not * large data sets , would be done remotely ( i.e. , in the " cloud " ) while computing which results in large data that must be displayed on the client ( e.g. , large image editing ) is done locally .
This suggests that augmenting existing desktop platforms with more cloud capabilities , or augmenting existing web-app platforms with local computing capabilities would be the proper superset that covers all bases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, things move on.
But please be aware that there is a whole class of applications that are simply inappropriate for cloud computing.
For example, try any of the existing web based image editors on a large image (the sort a professional photographer routinely works with 35MB+).
Although the server on the other end of the connection might be able to do the requested image manipulation, transferring a full screen window's worth of the transformed data (~4MB) over the network means this app is inherently slow compared to running it locally on even a laptop of modest speed (where displaying a full screen window from a buffer is essentially instantaneous).It would seem that the logical, non-hype direction in which to move is a hybrid where some computing, the results of which are *not* large data sets, would be done remotely (i.e., in the "cloud") while computing which results in large data that must be displayed on the client (e.g., large image editing) is done locally.
This suggests that augmenting existing desktop platforms with more cloud capabilities, or augmenting existing web-app platforms with local computing capabilities would be the proper superset that covers all bases.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621601</id>
	<title>No vision</title>
	<author>copponex</author>
	<datestamp>1247065740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it's open source and has a unified API, you're overlooking the fact that this is now real competition to Windows. Brand name? Check. R&amp;D budget? Check. Third party support? Check. Linux kernel? Check. Imagine Canonical with billions of dollars.</p><p>Hell, if it's actually a brand new WM this will probably take the top distro spot the day after release. Just providing developers with a consistent platform that requires the investment of one working computer and an internet connection is pretty appealing. Even if it sucks for Linux diehards, the competition will change the landscape for Microsoft and perhaps even Apple.</p><p>Imagine an advertising campaign: "Is your computer broken? Just stop by your local Starbucks or Staples and pick up your free copy of Google OS. After making room on your hard drive, it will load a new and secure operating system that will allow you to browse the internet, play Solitaire, and write letters with it's included office suite. Once it's loaded, you'll have the option of recovering data and backing it up online for free so you'll never have to worry about data loss again."</p><p>Yeah. Some eyebrows were just raised in Redmond and Cupertino.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's open source and has a unified API , you 're overlooking the fact that this is now real competition to Windows .
Brand name ?
Check. R&amp;D budget ?
Check. Third party support ?
Check. Linux kernel ?
Check. Imagine Canonical with billions of dollars.Hell , if it 's actually a brand new WM this will probably take the top distro spot the day after release .
Just providing developers with a consistent platform that requires the investment of one working computer and an internet connection is pretty appealing .
Even if it sucks for Linux diehards , the competition will change the landscape for Microsoft and perhaps even Apple.Imagine an advertising campaign : " Is your computer broken ?
Just stop by your local Starbucks or Staples and pick up your free copy of Google OS .
After making room on your hard drive , it will load a new and secure operating system that will allow you to browse the internet , play Solitaire , and write letters with it 's included office suite .
Once it 's loaded , you 'll have the option of recovering data and backing it up online for free so you 'll never have to worry about data loss again. " Yeah .
Some eyebrows were just raised in Redmond and Cupertino .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's open source and has a unified API, you're overlooking the fact that this is now real competition to Windows.
Brand name?
Check. R&amp;D budget?
Check. Third party support?
Check. Linux kernel?
Check. Imagine Canonical with billions of dollars.Hell, if it's actually a brand new WM this will probably take the top distro spot the day after release.
Just providing developers with a consistent platform that requires the investment of one working computer and an internet connection is pretty appealing.
Even if it sucks for Linux diehards, the competition will change the landscape for Microsoft and perhaps even Apple.Imagine an advertising campaign: "Is your computer broken?
Just stop by your local Starbucks or Staples and pick up your free copy of Google OS.
After making room on your hard drive, it will load a new and secure operating system that will allow you to browse the internet, play Solitaire, and write letters with it's included office suite.
Once it's loaded, you'll have the option of recovering data and backing it up online for free so you'll never have to worry about data loss again."Yeah.
Some eyebrows were just raised in Redmond and Cupertino.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625237</id>
	<title>Re:The web is NOT the OS</title>
	<author>VGPowerlord</author>
	<datestamp>1247078460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The web isn't what it used to be. The days when the web was mostly a collection of static pages are long gone. The web is dynamic, interactive, and user-driven. The web is</p></div></blockquote><p>I may be a power user, but I have a feeling that I'm in the majority for at least some of these:</p><blockquote><div><p>email</p></div></blockquote><p>I use GMail.  I access it via IMAP using Mozilla Thunderbird 2.0.22 and find it's a much better user experience than the web version.  However, I'll give you this one simply because most people these days seem to use webmail these days.</p><blockquote><div><p>ftp</p></div></blockquote><p>Uh, what?  Maybe you use your web browser to <b>download</b> from FTP sites, but last I checked browsers sucked at ftp uploads.</p><p>Filezilla is a nice, free FTP app that even supports ftps and sftp.</p><blockquote><div><p>live video</p></div></blockquote><p>Really?  I don't recall my web browser having access to my quickcam*.</p><p>* I'm lying, I don't have a quickcam, but it still wouldn't have access to it.  Even Flash requires my explicit permission to be able to access it, however if you're talking about a flash app, I've replied to flash separately farther down.</p><blockquote><div><p>instant messaging</p></div></blockquote><p>On my home computer, I usually have Pidgin, Skype, Steam, and Xfire running.  None of these are web-apps.</p><p>All the major IM networks still have their own clients: AIM, Windows Live Messenger, YIM, etc...</p><blockquote><div><p>word processing</p></div></blockquote><p>I <b>know</b> this one is the minority.  Like it or not, Microsoft Office is the most widely used word processor in the world.  Personally, I use OpenOffice, but like I said... I'm a power user.  Of course, neither of the apps I mentioned are web apps.</p><blockquote><div><p>photo galleries</p></div></blockquote><p>I don't do photo galleries, but my mom does.  She uses Windows XP's Slideshow to view them.</p><p>However, a good many people do use the web for photo galleries, so I'll give this one to you.</p><blockquote><div><p>forums</p></div></blockquote><p>duh, of course these are web apps.</p><blockquote><div><p>flash, games, television</p></div></blockquote><p>Bad choice.  Flash Player is native code and doesn't require a web browser to run as long as you have a Flash player app.</p><p>Oh, and of course most of the games and television that you watch over the web are done in Flash.  There are exception, such as abc.com's video is done as a browser plugin.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The web is n't what it used to be .
The days when the web was mostly a collection of static pages are long gone .
The web is dynamic , interactive , and user-driven .
The web isI may be a power user , but I have a feeling that I 'm in the majority for at least some of these : emailI use GMail .
I access it via IMAP using Mozilla Thunderbird 2.0.22 and find it 's a much better user experience than the web version .
However , I 'll give you this one simply because most people these days seem to use webmail these days.ftpUh , what ?
Maybe you use your web browser to download from FTP sites , but last I checked browsers sucked at ftp uploads.Filezilla is a nice , free FTP app that even supports ftps and sftp.live videoReally ?
I do n't recall my web browser having access to my quickcam * .
* I 'm lying , I do n't have a quickcam , but it still would n't have access to it .
Even Flash requires my explicit permission to be able to access it , however if you 're talking about a flash app , I 've replied to flash separately farther down.instant messagingOn my home computer , I usually have Pidgin , Skype , Steam , and Xfire running .
None of these are web-apps.All the major IM networks still have their own clients : AIM , Windows Live Messenger , YIM , etc...word processingI know this one is the minority .
Like it or not , Microsoft Office is the most widely used word processor in the world .
Personally , I use OpenOffice , but like I said... I 'm a power user .
Of course , neither of the apps I mentioned are web apps.photo galleriesI do n't do photo galleries , but my mom does .
She uses Windows XP 's Slideshow to view them.However , a good many people do use the web for photo galleries , so I 'll give this one to you.forumsduh , of course these are web apps.flash , games , televisionBad choice .
Flash Player is native code and does n't require a web browser to run as long as you have a Flash player app.Oh , and of course most of the games and television that you watch over the web are done in Flash .
There are exception , such as abc.com 's video is done as a browser plugin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The web isn't what it used to be.
The days when the web was mostly a collection of static pages are long gone.
The web is dynamic, interactive, and user-driven.
The web isI may be a power user, but I have a feeling that I'm in the majority for at least some of these:emailI use GMail.
I access it via IMAP using Mozilla Thunderbird 2.0.22 and find it's a much better user experience than the web version.
However, I'll give you this one simply because most people these days seem to use webmail these days.ftpUh, what?
Maybe you use your web browser to download from FTP sites, but last I checked browsers sucked at ftp uploads.Filezilla is a nice, free FTP app that even supports ftps and sftp.live videoReally?
I don't recall my web browser having access to my quickcam*.
* I'm lying, I don't have a quickcam, but it still wouldn't have access to it.
Even Flash requires my explicit permission to be able to access it, however if you're talking about a flash app, I've replied to flash separately farther down.instant messagingOn my home computer, I usually have Pidgin, Skype, Steam, and Xfire running.
None of these are web-apps.All the major IM networks still have their own clients: AIM, Windows Live Messenger, YIM, etc...word processingI know this one is the minority.
Like it or not, Microsoft Office is the most widely used word processor in the world.
Personally, I use OpenOffice, but like I said... I'm a power user.
Of course, neither of the apps I mentioned are web apps.photo galleriesI don't do photo galleries, but my mom does.
She uses Windows XP's Slideshow to view them.However, a good many people do use the web for photo galleries, so I'll give this one to you.forumsduh, of course these are web apps.flash, games, televisionBad choice.
Flash Player is native code and doesn't require a web browser to run as long as you have a Flash player app.Oh, and of course most of the games and television that you watch over the web are done in Flash.
There are exception, such as abc.com's video is done as a browser plugin.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28626797</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247083860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's because it&#194;s just a web browser. And since Microsoft started giving away IE many, many years ago, they've been basically free.</p><p>So where's the big deal?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because it   s just a web browser .
And since Microsoft started giving away IE many , many years ago , they 've been basically free.So where 's the big deal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because itÂs just a web browser.
And since Microsoft started giving away IE many, many years ago, they've been basically free.So where's the big deal?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619967</id>
	<title>Re:Competition is good, baby!</title>
	<author>ionix5891</author>
	<datestamp>1247059200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>google dont care about Linux</p><p>its only a means to earn more $$$ and gain more 00 (thats eyeballs)</p><p>people still buy that whole do no evil koolaid</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>google dont care about Linuxits only a means to earn more $ $ $ and gain more 00 ( thats eyeballs ) people still buy that whole do no evil koolaid</tokentext>
<sentencetext>google dont care about Linuxits only a means to earn more $$$ and gain more 00 (thats eyeballs)people still buy that whole do no evil koolaid</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619929</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620519</id>
	<title>Love it, brilliant, excellent news :)</title>
	<author>WhiteFluffyChest</author>
	<datestamp>1247061780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is what we need, some serious competition and a big brand behind Linux.</p><p>I can't wait to see this and would really like to develop for it.</p><p>Great stuff, and many congratulations to Google<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is what we need , some serious competition and a big brand behind Linux.I ca n't wait to see this and would really like to develop for it.Great stuff , and many congratulations to Google : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is what we need, some serious competition and a big brand behind Linux.I can't wait to see this and would really like to develop for it.Great stuff, and many congratulations to Google :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621445</id>
	<title>Re:Why would I want this?</title>
	<author>abe ferlman</author>
	<datestamp>1247065020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Honestly, if it's running a linux kernel, with just a quick download you can get X windows and run every app you want anyway, and I wouldn't be surprised if Google had some sort of X emulation available for just this purpose within their OS for adventurous users.  Just getting the kernel out there means people can run linux apps, meaning the install base grows and that's good for everyone who would like to see a change in Microsoft's market dominance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , if it 's running a linux kernel , with just a quick download you can get X windows and run every app you want anyway , and I would n't be surprised if Google had some sort of X emulation available for just this purpose within their OS for adventurous users .
Just getting the kernel out there means people can run linux apps , meaning the install base grows and that 's good for everyone who would like to see a change in Microsoft 's market dominance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, if it's running a linux kernel, with just a quick download you can get X windows and run every app you want anyway, and I wouldn't be surprised if Google had some sort of X emulation available for just this purpose within their OS for adventurous users.
Just getting the kernel out there means people can run linux apps, meaning the install base grows and that's good for everyone who would like to see a change in Microsoft's market dominance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621495</id>
	<title>Re:Yawn, another distro?</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1247065260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because Google is a giant and they've got everything it takes to pull it off unlike everyone else who tried before? Emphasis on the word giant, you can ask the first person you see in the street what's Google and they'll know.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because Google is a giant and they 've got everything it takes to pull it off unlike everyone else who tried before ?
Emphasis on the word giant , you can ask the first person you see in the street what 's Google and they 'll know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because Google is a giant and they've got everything it takes to pull it off unlike everyone else who tried before?
Emphasis on the word giant, you can ask the first person you see in the street what's Google and they'll know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620291</id>
	<title>Re:Chrome is the new Emacs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247060760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>System Vi much better!</htmltext>
<tokenext>System Vi much better !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>System Vi much better!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623265</id>
	<title>Re:worst. security. idea. EVER.</title>
	<author>walterbyrd</author>
	<datestamp>1247071560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um, in case you didn't know: ms-windows, and especially msie, have been a total security train wreck for the last 10+ years. As to reliability, I have far less trouble with firefox than msie. Also, firefox has far more useful features, especially when you consider the plugins.</p><p>Firefox is far from perfect, I am sure the same goes for chrome, but msie has been a complete disaster in terms of reliability, security, features, and support for standards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , in case you did n't know : ms-windows , and especially msie , have been a total security train wreck for the last 10 + years .
As to reliability , I have far less trouble with firefox than msie .
Also , firefox has far more useful features , especially when you consider the plugins.Firefox is far from perfect , I am sure the same goes for chrome , but msie has been a complete disaster in terms of reliability , security , features , and support for standards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, in case you didn't know: ms-windows, and especially msie, have been a total security train wreck for the last 10+ years.
As to reliability, I have far less trouble with firefox than msie.
Also, firefox has far more useful features, especially when you consider the plugins.Firefox is far from perfect, I am sure the same goes for chrome, but msie has been a complete disaster in terms of reliability, security, features, and support for standards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620979</id>
	<title>Re:Fast web OS needed!</title>
	<author>Mr.Intel</author>
	<datestamp>1247063520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>snip</i> </p><p><div class="quote"><p>The choice is clear, sluggish native apps are becoming obsolete, and lightweight online apps are becoming more and more reliable. And when you only use these kind of netapps, why bother installing a bloated OS. This might just be the next revolution in the netbook industry.</p></div><p>Until fast, reliable, wireless internet access is available 24/7 in 90+\% of the industrialized world, web-based OSes will never penetrate the market far enough to displace Microsoft.  Why bother installing a bloated OS?  Because it runs my stuff (games/cad/graphic design/etc) offline.  More to the point, the target hardward for this is netbooks, which means crappy, slow, <i>small</i> SSD drives.  Limited storage means they will want to GoogleDocs my data, which means I have to have internet to get my data, which means it has to be fast, because my 1.5 GB cad drawing loads slow on gigabit networks and an 8 core portable workstation.  Yeah, they're not necessarily targeting the power users (for now), but it illustrates the point that this OS is naturally limited by multiple factors.  Add to that the fact that Microsoft won't give up market share quietly and Windows 7 is a disaster in the making... we'll see a lot of turbulence in the portable market for years to come.  End result may be positive, if Microsoft is pressured into performance (much like Intel was back before the Phenom days).  Personally, I don't see a GoogOS making that much of a splash.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>snip The choice is clear , sluggish native apps are becoming obsolete , and lightweight online apps are becoming more and more reliable .
And when you only use these kind of netapps , why bother installing a bloated OS .
This might just be the next revolution in the netbook industry.Until fast , reliable , wireless internet access is available 24/7 in 90 + \ % of the industrialized world , web-based OSes will never penetrate the market far enough to displace Microsoft .
Why bother installing a bloated OS ?
Because it runs my stuff ( games/cad/graphic design/etc ) offline .
More to the point , the target hardward for this is netbooks , which means crappy , slow , small SSD drives .
Limited storage means they will want to GoogleDocs my data , which means I have to have internet to get my data , which means it has to be fast , because my 1.5 GB cad drawing loads slow on gigabit networks and an 8 core portable workstation .
Yeah , they 're not necessarily targeting the power users ( for now ) , but it illustrates the point that this OS is naturally limited by multiple factors .
Add to that the fact that Microsoft wo n't give up market share quietly and Windows 7 is a disaster in the making... we 'll see a lot of turbulence in the portable market for years to come .
End result may be positive , if Microsoft is pressured into performance ( much like Intel was back before the Phenom days ) .
Personally , I do n't see a GoogOS making that much of a splash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> snip The choice is clear, sluggish native apps are becoming obsolete, and lightweight online apps are becoming more and more reliable.
And when you only use these kind of netapps, why bother installing a bloated OS.
This might just be the next revolution in the netbook industry.Until fast, reliable, wireless internet access is available 24/7 in 90+\% of the industrialized world, web-based OSes will never penetrate the market far enough to displace Microsoft.
Why bother installing a bloated OS?
Because it runs my stuff (games/cad/graphic design/etc) offline.
More to the point, the target hardward for this is netbooks, which means crappy, slow, small SSD drives.
Limited storage means they will want to GoogleDocs my data, which means I have to have internet to get my data, which means it has to be fast, because my 1.5 GB cad drawing loads slow on gigabit networks and an 8 core portable workstation.
Yeah, they're not necessarily targeting the power users (for now), but it illustrates the point that this OS is naturally limited by multiple factors.
Add to that the fact that Microsoft won't give up market share quietly and Windows 7 is a disaster in the making... we'll see a lot of turbulence in the portable market for years to come.
End result may be positive, if Microsoft is pressured into performance (much like Intel was back before the Phenom days).
Personally, I don't see a GoogOS making that much of a splash.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28632371</id>
	<title>I want my data AND my apps on my local disk</title>
	<author>datadefender</author>
	<datestamp>1247074020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I understand correct then Google-OS will do everything with web-apps and put my data in the cloud - no thanks !<br>My data is only safe on my encrypted disk and backup where I have full control.<br>And there are just too many situations where I have no connectivity.<br>Call me old fashioned but I want my data AND my apps on my local disk and work without dependence on connectivity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I understand correct then Google-OS will do everything with web-apps and put my data in the cloud - no thanks ! My data is only safe on my encrypted disk and backup where I have full control.And there are just too many situations where I have no connectivity.Call me old fashioned but I want my data AND my apps on my local disk and work without dependence on connectivity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I understand correct then Google-OS will do everything with web-apps and put my data in the cloud - no thanks !My data is only safe on my encrypted disk and backup where I have full control.And there are just too many situations where I have no connectivity.Call me old fashioned but I want my data AND my apps on my local disk and work without dependence on connectivity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622675</id>
	<title>Re:The web is NOT the OS</title>
	<author>martas</author>
	<datestamp>1247069400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>buzzword overdose... need... stomach... pumped!<br> <br>
good post, though. completely agree.</htmltext>
<tokenext>buzzword overdose... need... stomach... pumped ! good post , though .
completely agree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>buzzword overdose... need... stomach... pumped! 
good post, though.
completely agree.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620677</id>
	<title>Re:Fear</title>
	<author>castironpigeon</author>
	<datestamp>1247062440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's got to be some give and take. It's all speculation right now, but we possibly get an OS that's fast, simple, and secure and they (Google) possibly get to generate revenue from it in some way. Would you really expect a corporation like Google to sink so many resources into this and then expect no return on it?<br> <br>Take some comfort in the fact that because this OS has to start out as the underdog it has to earn a foothold in the market. This means that Google would be shooting themselves in the foot by doing something blatantly evil with it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's got to be some give and take .
It 's all speculation right now , but we possibly get an OS that 's fast , simple , and secure and they ( Google ) possibly get to generate revenue from it in some way .
Would you really expect a corporation like Google to sink so many resources into this and then expect no return on it ?
Take some comfort in the fact that because this OS has to start out as the underdog it has to earn a foothold in the market .
This means that Google would be shooting themselves in the foot by doing something blatantly evil with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's got to be some give and take.
It's all speculation right now, but we possibly get an OS that's fast, simple, and secure and they (Google) possibly get to generate revenue from it in some way.
Would you really expect a corporation like Google to sink so many resources into this and then expect no return on it?
Take some comfort in the fact that because this OS has to start out as the underdog it has to earn a foothold in the market.
This means that Google would be shooting themselves in the foot by doing something blatantly evil with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619981</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623897</id>
	<title>Re:Mcdonaldsoft rival at last!</title>
	<author>flibuste</author>
	<datestamp>1247073900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With my Linux fan cap on, as a personal opinion, I'd say that on top of adding noise to the OS market, a new effort for an OS still based on Linux seems like a waste of efforts where said efforts could be directed to successful projects that are live and kicking such as Ubuntu. Unfortunately, the motivation is clear: add PROFIT to the set of librairies the OS implements.
</p><p>I am also not sure the average household laptop consumer really needs yet another OS to get confused with. In that matter, the switch to Google OS coudl well not happen as Google could plan, by lack of will from your dad and gran'ma (who are the real targets, not us, tech savvy folks).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With my Linux fan cap on , as a personal opinion , I 'd say that on top of adding noise to the OS market , a new effort for an OS still based on Linux seems like a waste of efforts where said efforts could be directed to successful projects that are live and kicking such as Ubuntu .
Unfortunately , the motivation is clear : add PROFIT to the set of librairies the OS implements .
I am also not sure the average household laptop consumer really needs yet another OS to get confused with .
In that matter , the switch to Google OS coudl well not happen as Google could plan , by lack of will from your dad and gran'ma ( who are the real targets , not us , tech savvy folks ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With my Linux fan cap on, as a personal opinion, I'd say that on top of adding noise to the OS market, a new effort for an OS still based on Linux seems like a waste of efforts where said efforts could be directed to successful projects that are live and kicking such as Ubuntu.
Unfortunately, the motivation is clear: add PROFIT to the set of librairies the OS implements.
I am also not sure the average household laptop consumer really needs yet another OS to get confused with.
In that matter, the switch to Google OS coudl well not happen as Google could plan, by lack of will from your dad and gran'ma (who are the real targets, not us, tech savvy folks).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623079</id>
	<title>Re:The web is NOT the OS</title>
	<author>businessnerd</author>
	<datestamp>1247070840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Web apps work very well for certain applications, and Google has shown that they can push the limits with dynamic content, but that does not mean the web application is an appropriate model for every damned application</p></div></blockquote><p>Isn't that the point of Chrome OS, though?  If Google really felt that you should be doing everything as a web-app, then they would just keep pushing Chrome browser and you would not need an OS.  The way I read it, Google made Chrome Browser for web-apps, and Chrome OS for everything else.  If you want to run native applications, then go right ahead (assuming your application has been ported over).  Or, if you don't like it, just don't use it.  I don't like Windows, so I don't use it.  It's that simple.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Web apps work very well for certain applications , and Google has shown that they can push the limits with dynamic content , but that does not mean the web application is an appropriate model for every damned applicationIs n't that the point of Chrome OS , though ?
If Google really felt that you should be doing everything as a web-app , then they would just keep pushing Chrome browser and you would not need an OS .
The way I read it , Google made Chrome Browser for web-apps , and Chrome OS for everything else .
If you want to run native applications , then go right ahead ( assuming your application has been ported over ) .
Or , if you do n't like it , just do n't use it .
I do n't like Windows , so I do n't use it .
It 's that simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Web apps work very well for certain applications, and Google has shown that they can push the limits with dynamic content, but that does not mean the web application is an appropriate model for every damned applicationIsn't that the point of Chrome OS, though?
If Google really felt that you should be doing everything as a web-app, then they would just keep pushing Chrome browser and you would not need an OS.
The way I read it, Google made Chrome Browser for web-apps, and Chrome OS for everything else.
If you want to run native applications, then go right ahead (assuming your application has been ported over).
Or, if you don't like it, just don't use it.
I don't like Windows, so I don't use it.
It's that simple.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625171</id>
	<title>Re:Competition is good, baby!</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1247078220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does Google spend money on the Summer of Code?  Do they profit directly from it?</p><p>Do they hire guys like Andrew Morton and tell him his entire job is to work on Linux at Linus' discretion?</p><p>Is Google's entire company built upon Linux?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does Google spend money on the Summer of Code ?
Do they profit directly from it ? Do they hire guys like Andrew Morton and tell him his entire job is to work on Linux at Linus ' discretion ? Is Google 's entire company built upon Linux ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does Google spend money on the Summer of Code?
Do they profit directly from it?Do they hire guys like Andrew Morton and tell him his entire job is to work on Linux at Linus' discretion?Is Google's entire company built upon Linux?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620465</id>
	<title>Drivers?</title>
	<author>checkup21</author>
	<datestamp>1247061540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Biggest problem in the linux world is the weak support from vendors for their video hardware and the not so up to date X11.

Windows in vmware on linux feels snappier then native linux. This is my number one showstopper for linux.

Google OS may be as slim as it wants to be, if the video drivers slows it down, no one will be happy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Biggest problem in the linux world is the weak support from vendors for their video hardware and the not so up to date X11 .
Windows in vmware on linux feels snappier then native linux .
This is my number one showstopper for linux .
Google OS may be as slim as it wants to be , if the video drivers slows it down , no one will be happy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Biggest problem in the linux world is the weak support from vendors for their video hardware and the not so up to date X11.
Windows in vmware on linux feels snappier then native linux.
This is my number one showstopper for linux.
Google OS may be as slim as it wants to be, if the video drivers slows it down, no one will be happy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625197</id>
	<title>Re:Fear</title>
	<author>chammy</author>
	<datestamp>1247078280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google Chrome OS is an <b>open source</b>, lightweight operating system that will initially be targeted at netbooks.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google Chrome OS is an open source , lightweight operating system that will initially be targeted at netbooks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google Chrome OS is an open source, lightweight operating system that will initially be targeted at netbooks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619981</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619927</id>
	<title>Uh huh.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247058900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's GNU/Chrome, thanks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's GNU/Chrome , thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's GNU/Chrome, thanks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621357</id>
	<title>Re:The one thing that could derail this would be..</title>
	<author>yossarianuk</author>
	<datestamp>1247064660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Mac OS for PCs. Wouldn't u love that?" <br> <br>
No.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Mac OS for PCs .
Would n't u love that ?
" No .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Mac OS for PCs.
Wouldn't u love that?
"  
No.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28628697</id>
	<title>Linux Killer! I feel queasy</title>
	<author>w0mprat</author>
	<datestamp>1247049360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mod me down I don't care but this could be a linux killer - it will be competing with the traditional Linux distro as well as OSX and Windows, yet none of you have really pointed this out in a suitably<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. style self righteous fashion.<br> <br>
Linux has been a viable laptop and desktop operating system for about a decade, infact it is now really good on the desktop, is free, fast, stable, secure with a growing application ecosystem, yet Linux has utterly failed to take over the world only has 1-3\% desktop market share (ok - depending on who you ask).
<br> <br>
Do you really thing that a decade from the release of ChromeOS it's market share will be low single digits?
<br> <br>
I say in a matter of months the market share will surpass that. Following that there is a damn good chance MS is going hemorrhage market share in a way that's without precedent in OS history. Unfortunately traditional Linux distributions X+KDE/Gnome/etc are going feel the hurt also. Consumers looking for a free-os switch from OSX/Windows are going to be gobbled up by Google.
<br> <br>In a short space of time Chrome will do what Linux has epically failed to do the last 15 years, and that is to market itself to the masses while taking a big bite out of Microsoft.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod me down I do n't care but this could be a linux killer - it will be competing with the traditional Linux distro as well as OSX and Windows , yet none of you have really pointed this out in a suitably / .
style self righteous fashion .
Linux has been a viable laptop and desktop operating system for about a decade , infact it is now really good on the desktop , is free , fast , stable , secure with a growing application ecosystem , yet Linux has utterly failed to take over the world only has 1-3 \ % desktop market share ( ok - depending on who you ask ) .
Do you really thing that a decade from the release of ChromeOS it 's market share will be low single digits ?
I say in a matter of months the market share will surpass that .
Following that there is a damn good chance MS is going hemorrhage market share in a way that 's without precedent in OS history .
Unfortunately traditional Linux distributions X + KDE/Gnome/etc are going feel the hurt also .
Consumers looking for a free-os switch from OSX/Windows are going to be gobbled up by Google .
In a short space of time Chrome will do what Linux has epically failed to do the last 15 years , and that is to market itself to the masses while taking a big bite out of Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod me down I don't care but this could be a linux killer - it will be competing with the traditional Linux distro as well as OSX and Windows, yet none of you have really pointed this out in a suitably /.
style self righteous fashion.
Linux has been a viable laptop and desktop operating system for about a decade, infact it is now really good on the desktop, is free, fast, stable, secure with a growing application ecosystem, yet Linux has utterly failed to take over the world only has 1-3\% desktop market share (ok - depending on who you ask).
Do you really thing that a decade from the release of ChromeOS it's market share will be low single digits?
I say in a matter of months the market share will surpass that.
Following that there is a damn good chance MS is going hemorrhage market share in a way that's without precedent in OS history.
Unfortunately traditional Linux distributions X+KDE/Gnome/etc are going feel the hurt also.
Consumers looking for a free-os switch from OSX/Windows are going to be gobbled up by Google.
In a short space of time Chrome will do what Linux has epically failed to do the last 15 years, and that is to market itself to the masses while taking a big bite out of Microsoft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620393</id>
	<title>Re:Fear</title>
	<author>tolan-b</author>
	<datestamp>1247061180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The OS is OSS but Google want to essentially make the OS a thin wrapper around web based apps. Google's web apps are proprietary, closed, and datamine the crap out of your usage and personal data.</p><p>So although there will probably be some positives for OSS from this, perhaps some more drivers for the Linux kernel, on the whole it's going to do little for real FOSS adoption.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The OS is OSS but Google want to essentially make the OS a thin wrapper around web based apps .
Google 's web apps are proprietary , closed , and datamine the crap out of your usage and personal data.So although there will probably be some positives for OSS from this , perhaps some more drivers for the Linux kernel , on the whole it 's going to do little for real FOSS adoption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The OS is OSS but Google want to essentially make the OS a thin wrapper around web based apps.
Google's web apps are proprietary, closed, and datamine the crap out of your usage and personal data.So although there will probably be some positives for OSS from this, perhaps some more drivers for the Linux kernel, on the whole it's going to do little for real FOSS adoption.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621933</id>
	<title>Apple should be worried too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247066940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the announcement it sounds like Google's plan is go to with sealed hardware, starting with netbooks and moving up to laptops/desktops, as written in the announcement, "Even more importantly, they don't want to spend hours configuring their computers to work with every new piece of hardware...". For this happen, either the new Google OS will have to have the same base of drivers that Microsoft does (which is far greater than most Linux distros), or it will use locked down systems that require Google branded hardware. The latter seems more likely. Since Apple has a similar model and mantra ("it just works"), I believe the Apple will be harmed the most by Google's entry into the OS market. I don't think Apple will lose marketshare, but Google's entry will guarantee that Apple will become a niche product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the announcement it sounds like Google 's plan is go to with sealed hardware , starting with netbooks and moving up to laptops/desktops , as written in the announcement , " Even more importantly , they do n't want to spend hours configuring their computers to work with every new piece of hardware... " .
For this happen , either the new Google OS will have to have the same base of drivers that Microsoft does ( which is far greater than most Linux distros ) , or it will use locked down systems that require Google branded hardware .
The latter seems more likely .
Since Apple has a similar model and mantra ( " it just works " ) , I believe the Apple will be harmed the most by Google 's entry into the OS market .
I do n't think Apple will lose marketshare , but Google 's entry will guarantee that Apple will become a niche product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the announcement it sounds like Google's plan is go to with sealed hardware, starting with netbooks and moving up to laptops/desktops, as written in the announcement, "Even more importantly, they don't want to spend hours configuring their computers to work with every new piece of hardware...".
For this happen, either the new Google OS will have to have the same base of drivers that Microsoft does (which is far greater than most Linux distros), or it will use locked down systems that require Google branded hardware.
The latter seems more likely.
Since Apple has a similar model and mantra ("it just works"), I believe the Apple will be harmed the most by Google's entry into the OS market.
I don't think Apple will lose marketshare, but Google's entry will guarantee that Apple will become a niche product.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620145</id>
	<title>Pixel-level access?</title>
	<author>michaelmalak</author>
	<datestamp>1247060100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What do they plan to do to grant pixel-level access?  Flash?  Java?  Introduce new capabilities to Javascript?<p>How do they plan to allow "web applications" to access the local filesystem in a standards-compliant fashion?</p><p>Sun had solved all these problems, but Microsoft embraced and extinguished it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do they plan to do to grant pixel-level access ?
Flash ? Java ?
Introduce new capabilities to Javascript ? How do they plan to allow " web applications " to access the local filesystem in a standards-compliant fashion ? Sun had solved all these problems , but Microsoft embraced and extinguished it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do they plan to do to grant pixel-level access?
Flash?  Java?
Introduce new capabilities to Javascript?How do they plan to allow "web applications" to access the local filesystem in a standards-compliant fashion?Sun had solved all these problems, but Microsoft embraced and extinguished it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621249</id>
	<title>web OS function</title>
	<author>fulldecent</author>
	<datestamp>1247064240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The function of a web "OS" (including WM, kernel, system processes) for a browser-centric appliance are as follows:</p><p>Network connectivity and configuration (plus rendezvous support?)<br>CUPS support?<br>Window management<br>2d/3d hardware acceleration (don't forget Google's <a href="http://code.google.com/apis/o3d/" title="google.com">http://code.google.com/apis/o3d/</a> [google.com])<br>Filesystem, sound, video codec support<br>User device support:<br>- HIDs (multitouch?)<br>- printers?<br>- webcams?<br>- cameras?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The function of a web " OS " ( including WM , kernel , system processes ) for a browser-centric appliance are as follows : Network connectivity and configuration ( plus rendezvous support ?
) CUPS support ? Window management2d/3d hardware acceleration ( do n't forget Google 's http : //code.google.com/apis/o3d/ [ google.com ] ) Filesystem , sound , video codec supportUser device support : - HIDs ( multitouch ?
) - printers ? - webcams ? - cameras ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The function of a web "OS" (including WM, kernel, system processes) for a browser-centric appliance are as follows:Network connectivity and configuration (plus rendezvous support?
)CUPS support?Window management2d/3d hardware acceleration (don't forget Google's http://code.google.com/apis/o3d/ [google.com])Filesystem, sound, video codec supportUser device support:- HIDs (multitouch?
)- printers?- webcams?- cameras?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28624297</id>
	<title>What about drivers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247075340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will the Chrome OS have drivers for all current hardware perihperals? Like my 6 yr old HP AIO? Or my Mogo BT mouse? Will normal users need to "compile" drivers (shudder)? Will the OS even have a compiler?</p><p>Talking about a WEB OS is all great - as long as you can control ALL the hardware. If the Google OS tells me that 1) it can only install on certain Netbook models and 2) it will work only with certain peripheral hardware, it's already a failure in my book.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will the Chrome OS have drivers for all current hardware perihperals ?
Like my 6 yr old HP AIO ?
Or my Mogo BT mouse ?
Will normal users need to " compile " drivers ( shudder ) ?
Will the OS even have a compiler ? Talking about a WEB OS is all great - as long as you can control ALL the hardware .
If the Google OS tells me that 1 ) it can only install on certain Netbook models and 2 ) it will work only with certain peripheral hardware , it 's already a failure in my book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will the Chrome OS have drivers for all current hardware perihperals?
Like my 6 yr old HP AIO?
Or my Mogo BT mouse?
Will normal users need to "compile" drivers (shudder)?
Will the OS even have a compiler?Talking about a WEB OS is all great - as long as you can control ALL the hardware.
If the Google OS tells me that 1) it can only install on certain Netbook models and 2) it will work only with certain peripheral hardware, it's already a failure in my book.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28626509</id>
	<title>I for one...</title>
	<author>hurting now</author>
	<datestamp>1247082720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...continue to welcome my soveriegn overlords... Google.<br> <br>
They have pwned my soul for the past 6 years!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>...continue to welcome my soveriegn overlords... Google . They have pwned my soul for the past 6 years ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...continue to welcome my soveriegn overlords... Google. 
They have pwned my soul for the past 6 years!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620573</id>
	<title>The one thing that could derail this would be....</title>
	<author>i\_want\_you\_to\_throw\_</author>
	<datestamp>1247062020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mac OS for PCs. Wouldn't u love that?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mac OS for PCs .
Would n't u love that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mac OS for PCs.
Wouldn't u love that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28632045</id>
	<title>I laugh...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247070840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>at the moronic retards who trust an operating system from Google. You've got to be effing kidding me.</p><p>I mean, it's not like they're going to be collecting data and tracking usability habits of the os users and selling that information to the highest bidder.</p><p>I mean, it's not like they're going to hand over all that data to the government whenever uncle sam hands over some pathetic court document that kind of demands that its right for google to do so.</p><p>Please...I use as little google products as I possibly can during my internet use.</p><p>I would hope the tech community is a little bit more intelligent than to trust this spy-ware bullshit from 'do no evil' inc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>at the moronic retards who trust an operating system from Google .
You 've got to be effing kidding me.I mean , it 's not like they 're going to be collecting data and tracking usability habits of the os users and selling that information to the highest bidder.I mean , it 's not like they 're going to hand over all that data to the government whenever uncle sam hands over some pathetic court document that kind of demands that its right for google to do so.Please...I use as little google products as I possibly can during my internet use.I would hope the tech community is a little bit more intelligent than to trust this spy-ware bullshit from 'do no evil ' inc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>at the moronic retards who trust an operating system from Google.
You've got to be effing kidding me.I mean, it's not like they're going to be collecting data and tracking usability habits of the os users and selling that information to the highest bidder.I mean, it's not like they're going to hand over all that data to the government whenever uncle sam hands over some pathetic court document that kind of demands that its right for google to do so.Please...I use as little google products as I possibly can during my internet use.I would hope the tech community is a little bit more intelligent than to trust this spy-ware bullshit from 'do no evil' inc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620715</id>
	<title>IT is Google's distro.</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1247062560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you can't understand why this matters then I think you can't be helped.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ca n't understand why this matters then I think you ca n't be helped .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can't understand why this matters then I think you can't be helped.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28628395</id>
	<title>But will it be free?</title>
	<author>Calindae</author>
	<datestamp>1247047860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't like to pay for things with my money...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't like to pay for things with my money.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't like to pay for things with my money...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28629421</id>
	<title>OS-X doesn't run Explorer either</title>
	<author>Radical Moderate</author>
	<datestamp>1247053140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>....because microsoft quit developing IE for Mac years ago.  Still waiting for the propaganda coup.

MS got in trouble because the leveraged their near monopoly on the OS to crush Netscape.  Google doesn't have a monopoly on the OS...they don't even have an OS yet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>....because microsoft quit developing IE for Mac years ago .
Still waiting for the propaganda coup .
MS got in trouble because the leveraged their near monopoly on the OS to crush Netscape .
Google does n't have a monopoly on the OS...they do n't even have an OS yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....because microsoft quit developing IE for Mac years ago.
Still waiting for the propaganda coup.
MS got in trouble because the leveraged their near monopoly on the OS to crush Netscape.
Google doesn't have a monopoly on the OS...they don't even have an OS yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620385</id>
	<title>Re:Yawn, another distro?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247061180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How is this going to be different from other Linux distros and associated GUI revamp projects that have sprung up promising "we're going to be better than Windows! Really!" over the years?</p></div><p>Because this one will be a distro backed by the marketing clout and the manpower of a 125-billion-dollar corporation. Who have clout with OEMs and governments. Who have enough drones for programming a decent printer driver or providing non-snarky support. Who have a halo shinier than Apple in the  eyes of most consumers.</p><p>
This will be for Linux what MacOS X was for BSD (but with more code contributed back, hopefully).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this going to be different from other Linux distros and associated GUI revamp projects that have sprung up promising " we 're going to be better than Windows !
Really ! " over the years ? Because this one will be a distro backed by the marketing clout and the manpower of a 125-billion-dollar corporation .
Who have clout with OEMs and governments .
Who have enough drones for programming a decent printer driver or providing non-snarky support .
Who have a halo shinier than Apple in the eyes of most consumers .
This will be for Linux what MacOS X was for BSD ( but with more code contributed back , hopefully ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this going to be different from other Linux distros and associated GUI revamp projects that have sprung up promising "we're going to be better than Windows!
Really!" over the years?Because this one will be a distro backed by the marketing clout and the manpower of a 125-billion-dollar corporation.
Who have clout with OEMs and governments.
Who have enough drones for programming a decent printer driver or providing non-snarky support.
Who have a halo shinier than Apple in the  eyes of most consumers.
This will be for Linux what MacOS X was for BSD (but with more code contributed back, hopefully).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622489</id>
	<title>Re:Google should not screw this up...</title>
	<author>RiotingPacifist</author>
	<datestamp>1247068860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whats so bad in linux land?<br>Yes there are a million options and if you use certain distros (looking at you fedora and ubuntu) you get half-baked versions of lots of them, but if you want a full-baked solution its there (debian does pretty well), sure its not a shiny as vista/os X but its faster &amp; more secure!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whats so bad in linux land ? Yes there are a million options and if you use certain distros ( looking at you fedora and ubuntu ) you get half-baked versions of lots of them , but if you want a full-baked solution its there ( debian does pretty well ) , sure its not a shiny as vista/os X but its faster &amp; more secure !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whats so bad in linux land?Yes there are a million options and if you use certain distros (looking at you fedora and ubuntu) you get half-baked versions of lots of them, but if you want a full-baked solution its there (debian does pretty well), sure its not a shiny as vista/os X but its faster &amp; more secure!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620005</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621881</id>
	<title>MOD PARENT UP</title>
	<author>EvilNTUser</author>
	<datestamp>1247066700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I feel like a retard making a post like this, but mod the parent up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel like a retard making a post like this , but mod the parent up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel like a retard making a post like this, but mod the parent up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620891</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620045</id>
	<title>Automatically or automagically?</title>
	<author>denzacar</author>
	<datestamp>1247059560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"All Web-based applications will automatically work and new applications can be written using your favorite Web technologies," the company said.</p></div><p>Depends on your definition of "automatically". From what I hear, there is this little prerequisite called "internet access".</p><p>
&nbsp; <br>Also, while it appears that many are finding the news of the new Google Chrome Linux OS a cause to celebrate, I would advise quiet optimism at best.<br>They are yet to release Chrome for anything other than Windows.</p><p>A complete Chrome OS may still be somewhere in the (rather) far future.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" All Web-based applications will automatically work and new applications can be written using your favorite Web technologies , " the company said.Depends on your definition of " automatically " .
From what I hear , there is this little prerequisite called " internet access " .
  Also , while it appears that many are finding the news of the new Google Chrome Linux OS a cause to celebrate , I would advise quiet optimism at best.They are yet to release Chrome for anything other than Windows.A complete Chrome OS may still be somewhere in the ( rather ) far future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"All Web-based applications will automatically work and new applications can be written using your favorite Web technologies," the company said.Depends on your definition of "automatically".
From what I hear, there is this little prerequisite called "internet access".
  Also, while it appears that many are finding the news of the new Google Chrome Linux OS a cause to celebrate, I would advise quiet optimism at best.They are yet to release Chrome for anything other than Windows.A complete Chrome OS may still be somewhere in the (rather) far future.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622191</id>
	<title>Are they not aiming</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247067840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the same thing that gets MS in trouble with the bundling of the browser in with the OS and by extension trying to get around it by the browser essentially being the OS?It sounds to me they want to dominate the netbook arena with their product and in the end it will only run the applications that they "approve" sounds suspiciously like what people rail against MS for constantly these days.But then I suppose antitrust lawsuits and the monopoly word is only thrown around when its a "bad" company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the same thing that gets MS in trouble with the bundling of the browser in with the OS and by extension trying to get around it by the browser essentially being the OS ? It sounds to me they want to dominate the netbook arena with their product and in the end it will only run the applications that they " approve " sounds suspiciously like what people rail against MS for constantly these days.But then I suppose antitrust lawsuits and the monopoly word is only thrown around when its a " bad " company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the same thing that gets MS in trouble with the bundling of the browser in with the OS and by extension trying to get around it by the browser essentially being the OS?It sounds to me they want to dominate the netbook arena with their product and in the end it will only run the applications that they "approve" sounds suspiciously like what people rail against MS for constantly these days.But then I suppose antitrust lawsuits and the monopoly word is only thrown around when its a "bad" company.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28638309</id>
	<title>Re:This recession is a good time to strike</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247161380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Now, $4b is nothing to dismiss, especially when you're using and writing entirely free and open source software</p></div></blockquote><p>Err, I didn't know that their search engine and advertising engine are open source. That's where the big money comes from, right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , $ 4b is nothing to dismiss , especially when you 're using and writing entirely free and open source softwareErr , I did n't know that their search engine and advertising engine are open source .
That 's where the big money comes from , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, $4b is nothing to dismiss, especially when you're using and writing entirely free and open source softwareErr, I didn't know that their search engine and advertising engine are open source.
That's where the big money comes from, right?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620199</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620749</id>
	<title>Re:The web is NOT the OS</title>
	<author>Artifakt</author>
	<datestamp>1247062620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The web is not the OS, but for a product aimed first at netbooks, the web is more important than for a product aimed at stand alone PCs.</p><p>The web is not the OS. but the less a person plans on running workware, bulk data storage, or games, the more the web apps are all that <b>they</b> need.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The web is not the OS , but for a product aimed first at netbooks , the web is more important than for a product aimed at stand alone PCs.The web is not the OS .
but the less a person plans on running workware , bulk data storage , or games , the more the web apps are all that they need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The web is not the OS, but for a product aimed first at netbooks, the web is more important than for a product aimed at stand alone PCs.The web is not the OS.
but the less a person plans on running workware, bulk data storage, or games, the more the web apps are all that they need.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619975</id>
	<title>Javashit sucks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247059260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is one problem for this plan: javashit sucks.  It's truly an awful language.</p><p>I expect the future of network applications will be someone who can make a layer to run real existing applications over the network.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is one problem for this plan : javashit sucks .
It 's truly an awful language.I expect the future of network applications will be someone who can make a layer to run real existing applications over the network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is one problem for this plan: javashit sucks.
It's truly an awful language.I expect the future of network applications will be someone who can make a layer to run real existing applications over the network.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28627851</id>
	<title>Re:This recession is a good time to strike</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247045160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>right before their first drop ever they recorded record profits for mulitple quarters in a row, so I don't think they are that worried about hurting a bit in a recession.</p><p>The last thing we need is for Microsoft to be dethroned by a company that makes a living collecting your information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>right before their first drop ever they recorded record profits for mulitple quarters in a row , so I do n't think they are that worried about hurting a bit in a recession.The last thing we need is for Microsoft to be dethroned by a company that makes a living collecting your information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>right before their first drop ever they recorded record profits for mulitple quarters in a row, so I don't think they are that worried about hurting a bit in a recession.The last thing we need is for Microsoft to be dethroned by a company that makes a living collecting your information.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620199</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620201</id>
	<title>Re:Uh huh.</title>
	<author>BobZee1</author>
	<datestamp>1247060340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They are going to open source it. (second paragraph):
<a href="http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html</a> [blogspot.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are going to open source it .
( second paragraph ) : http : //googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html [ blogspot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are going to open source it.
(second paragraph):
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html [blogspot.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620343</id>
	<title>Taking a while</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1247061000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They are saying that it will be another year before being on Consumer goods. That is a long time. Hopefully, they make it available in a developer format before then (compilers, dev tools, etc). While it is targeting the net, they would be wise to have net apps developed before initial release.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are saying that it will be another year before being on Consumer goods .
That is a long time .
Hopefully , they make it available in a developer format before then ( compilers , dev tools , etc ) .
While it is targeting the net , they would be wise to have net apps developed before initial release .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are saying that it will be another year before being on Consumer goods.
That is a long time.
Hopefully, they make it available in a developer format before then (compilers, dev tools, etc).
While it is targeting the net, they would be wise to have net apps developed before initial release.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620423</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Aladrin</author>
	<datestamp>1247061300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, it does imply that Google thinks Chrome OS is better in those areas than its competitors and it's using those points to sell the product.  If it wasn't better, it would be foolish to use those as selling points because the competition will simply make a chart that shows their own OS is better than everything Chrome is advertised for.  That's really, really simple marketing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , it does imply that Google thinks Chrome OS is better in those areas than its competitors and it 's using those points to sell the product .
If it was n't better , it would be foolish to use those as selling points because the competition will simply make a chart that shows their own OS is better than everything Chrome is advertised for .
That 's really , really simple marketing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, it does imply that Google thinks Chrome OS is better in those areas than its competitors and it's using those points to sell the product.
If it wasn't better, it would be foolish to use those as selling points because the competition will simply make a chart that shows their own OS is better than everything Chrome is advertised for.
That's really, really simple marketing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28624299</id>
	<title>Re:Why would I want this?</title>
	<author>Burz</author>
	<datestamp>1247075340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The one company to really take a unixish kernel and succeed with it? Apple.</p></div><p>That's because Apple have made it an attractive platform for writing applications. They have a rich set of relatively stable APIs and ABIs.</p><p>On a typical Linux distro (Ubuntu too), you can't just write a program and expect it work work on anyone else's Linux desktop. How will your teachers, friends or associates try out your Linux programs without encountering dependency hell? And then there is the question of wildly varying system defaults.</p><p>The whole idea of "Linux desktop" being discussed for long years here and on other FOSS sites is a total red herring. There is no well-defined, easily-targetted Linux desktop platform. NONE.</p><p>Which is why Apple called their new OS "Mac OS X' and not "Apple BSD". Similarly, Google uses "Android" and not "Android Linux" etc.</p><p>As for Google's new offering it seems hardly worth calling an OS if a person cannot install their own software on it. It's a thin client.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The one company to really take a unixish kernel and succeed with it ?
Apple.That 's because Apple have made it an attractive platform for writing applications .
They have a rich set of relatively stable APIs and ABIs.On a typical Linux distro ( Ubuntu too ) , you ca n't just write a program and expect it work work on anyone else 's Linux desktop .
How will your teachers , friends or associates try out your Linux programs without encountering dependency hell ?
And then there is the question of wildly varying system defaults.The whole idea of " Linux desktop " being discussed for long years here and on other FOSS sites is a total red herring .
There is no well-defined , easily-targetted Linux desktop platform .
NONE.Which is why Apple called their new OS " Mac OS X ' and not " Apple BSD " .
Similarly , Google uses " Android " and not " Android Linux " etc.As for Google 's new offering it seems hardly worth calling an OS if a person can not install their own software on it .
It 's a thin client .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The one company to really take a unixish kernel and succeed with it?
Apple.That's because Apple have made it an attractive platform for writing applications.
They have a rich set of relatively stable APIs and ABIs.On a typical Linux distro (Ubuntu too), you can't just write a program and expect it work work on anyone else's Linux desktop.
How will your teachers, friends or associates try out your Linux programs without encountering dependency hell?
And then there is the question of wildly varying system defaults.The whole idea of "Linux desktop" being discussed for long years here and on other FOSS sites is a total red herring.
There is no well-defined, easily-targetted Linux desktop platform.
NONE.Which is why Apple called their new OS "Mac OS X' and not "Apple BSD".
Similarly, Google uses "Android" and not "Android Linux" etc.As for Google's new offering it seems hardly worth calling an OS if a person cannot install their own software on it.
It's a thin client.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621513</id>
	<title>Re:The web is NOT the OS</title>
	<author>Pascal Sartoretti</author>
	<datestamp>1247065320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I do NOT want everything to be a goddamn web app. Web apps work very well for certain applications, and Google has shown that they can push the limits with dynamic content, but that does not mean the web application is an appropriate model for every damned application.</p></div><p>Keep in mind that this is intended for netbooks, not "real" machines. When I am traveling, an excellent browser covers 80\% of my needs; if you add VLC, it jumps to 98\%...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do NOT want everything to be a goddamn web app .
Web apps work very well for certain applications , and Google has shown that they can push the limits with dynamic content , but that does not mean the web application is an appropriate model for every damned application.Keep in mind that this is intended for netbooks , not " real " machines .
When I am traveling , an excellent browser covers 80 \ % of my needs ; if you add VLC , it jumps to 98 \ % .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do NOT want everything to be a goddamn web app.
Web apps work very well for certain applications, and Google has shown that they can push the limits with dynamic content, but that does not mean the web application is an appropriate model for every damned application.Keep in mind that this is intended for netbooks, not "real" machines.
When I am traveling, an excellent browser covers 80\% of my needs; if you add VLC, it jumps to 98\%...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28632979</id>
	<title>Google + Linux?</title>
	<author>therufus</author>
	<datestamp>1247081700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Goonix anyone?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Goonix anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Goonix anyone?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28624505</id>
	<title>What's that noise?</title>
	<author>krygny</author>
	<datestamp>1247076000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can swear I hear chairs being thrown around. Sounds like it's coming from the NW US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can swear I hear chairs being thrown around .
Sounds like it 's coming from the NW US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can swear I hear chairs being thrown around.
Sounds like it's coming from the NW US.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621903</id>
	<title>Vaporware</title>
	<author>Sosarian</author>
	<datestamp>1247066820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry if I can't get too excited about what is essentially vaporware at the moment.</p><p>Wake me up when they actually ship some code or product, in the meantime it's just some sort of marketing drivel probably designed to take the wind out of Windows 7 or Cloud OS's sails.</p><p>But until I see an actual product, I'm not going to get overly excited.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry if I ca n't get too excited about what is essentially vaporware at the moment.Wake me up when they actually ship some code or product , in the meantime it 's just some sort of marketing drivel probably designed to take the wind out of Windows 7 or Cloud OS 's sails.But until I see an actual product , I 'm not going to get overly excited .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry if I can't get too excited about what is essentially vaporware at the moment.Wake me up when they actually ship some code or product, in the meantime it's just some sort of marketing drivel probably designed to take the wind out of Windows 7 or Cloud OS's sails.But until I see an actual product, I'm not going to get overly excited.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620329</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>rallymatte</author>
	<datestamp>1247060940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, you may be right, it might not imply that, but it's still true that it cannot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , you may be right , it might not imply that , but it 's still true that it can not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, you may be right, it might not imply that, but it's still true that it cannot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621937</id>
	<title>Re:The web is NOT the OS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247066940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The web is email, ftp, live video, instant messaging, word processing, photo galleries, forums, flash, games, television... You get the idea.</p></div><p>But it could really use a good text editor.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The web is email , ftp , live video , instant messaging , word processing , photo galleries , forums , flash , games , television... You get the idea.But it could really use a good text editor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The web is email, ftp, live video, instant messaging, word processing, photo galleries, forums, flash, games, television... You get the idea.But it could really use a good text editor.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621807</id>
	<title>Re:Automatically or automagically?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247066460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember, an application that runs in the browser doesn't have to be web based.  It can be one that utilizes the web when internet is present, and when offline, simply acts like a desktop app, except for the fact that the UI is the same whether you are online or not.<br>Gmail in Chrome does this now.  It's not that difficult, provided that you have a browser that is capable, and IE doesn't fall into that category.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember , an application that runs in the browser does n't have to be web based .
It can be one that utilizes the web when internet is present , and when offline , simply acts like a desktop app , except for the fact that the UI is the same whether you are online or not.Gmail in Chrome does this now .
It 's not that difficult , provided that you have a browser that is capable , and IE does n't fall into that category .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember, an application that runs in the browser doesn't have to be web based.
It can be one that utilizes the web when internet is present, and when offline, simply acts like a desktop app, except for the fact that the UI is the same whether you are online or not.Gmail in Chrome does this now.
It's not that difficult, provided that you have a browser that is capable, and IE doesn't fall into that category.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621611</id>
	<title>Re:This recession is a good time to strike</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1247065800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Perhaps Google is finally the David to slay Microsoft's Goliath</i> </p><p>Google is no David, it's more like another giant finally stepping on the Goliath's turf and coming to kick his ass while he's ailing. It's a battle of titans, and while Google is a bit smaller than Microsoft, Google is doing better than ever, Microsoft isn't doing so great. You mentioned the recession, Google wants to offer what Microsoft failed to even realise they should have done, for free.</p><p>Microsoft has the marketshare, but Google has the rest of the advantages here. The 2010s should deliver a pretty epic battle in the consumer-level OS department, and I'd venture to say that the landscape will look quite different 10 years from now, both in the marketshare and in what OSes will actually do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps Google is finally the David to slay Microsoft 's Goliath Google is no David , it 's more like another giant finally stepping on the Goliath 's turf and coming to kick his ass while he 's ailing .
It 's a battle of titans , and while Google is a bit smaller than Microsoft , Google is doing better than ever , Microsoft is n't doing so great .
You mentioned the recession , Google wants to offer what Microsoft failed to even realise they should have done , for free.Microsoft has the marketshare , but Google has the rest of the advantages here .
The 2010s should deliver a pretty epic battle in the consumer-level OS department , and I 'd venture to say that the landscape will look quite different 10 years from now , both in the marketshare and in what OSes will actually do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Perhaps Google is finally the David to slay Microsoft's Goliath Google is no David, it's more like another giant finally stepping on the Goliath's turf and coming to kick his ass while he's ailing.
It's a battle of titans, and while Google is a bit smaller than Microsoft, Google is doing better than ever, Microsoft isn't doing so great.
You mentioned the recession, Google wants to offer what Microsoft failed to even realise they should have done, for free.Microsoft has the marketshare, but Google has the rest of the advantages here.
The 2010s should deliver a pretty epic battle in the consumer-level OS department, and I'd venture to say that the landscape will look quite different 10 years from now, both in the marketshare and in what OSes will actually do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620199</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28635433</id>
	<title>We've been here before - X terminals</title>
	<author>zevans</author>
	<datestamp>1247149680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Minimal kernel, just enough OS around it to boot an X server, thus providing anything that understands X11 upwards to run on the "cloud" and use the Xterm to get the GUI in front of the user. At the time the cloud was the various Unix boxen dotted around the campus and when I was a lad, there were still some X11R3 servers around.</p><p>When the NC came out (remember them?) we went up a layer of abstraction and it was the JVM that provided the framework, and at the client end this sat on top of what was effectively still an Xterm.</p><p>And now the framework is Web 2.0 and the JVM (presumably - couldn't see a mention of that in any of the articles I looked at, but maybe it's just assumed?) - a new level of abstraction and so X may or may not be the middle layer of the stack doing the actual graphics and HCI stuff. Doesn't really matter.</p><p>So: Better abstraction, due to layers on layers; longer distances and larger more complex apps thanks to explosive Internet growth and Moore's law. But none of this is actually NEW.</p><p>Anyhoo, I'm off to eBay to see if I can find myself a nice 19" colour Tektronix... and you GET OFF MY LAWN.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Minimal kernel , just enough OS around it to boot an X server , thus providing anything that understands X11 upwards to run on the " cloud " and use the Xterm to get the GUI in front of the user .
At the time the cloud was the various Unix boxen dotted around the campus and when I was a lad , there were still some X11R3 servers around.When the NC came out ( remember them ?
) we went up a layer of abstraction and it was the JVM that provided the framework , and at the client end this sat on top of what was effectively still an Xterm.And now the framework is Web 2.0 and the JVM ( presumably - could n't see a mention of that in any of the articles I looked at , but maybe it 's just assumed ?
) - a new level of abstraction and so X may or may not be the middle layer of the stack doing the actual graphics and HCI stuff .
Does n't really matter.So : Better abstraction , due to layers on layers ; longer distances and larger more complex apps thanks to explosive Internet growth and Moore 's law .
But none of this is actually NEW.Anyhoo , I 'm off to eBay to see if I can find myself a nice 19 " colour Tektronix... and you GET OFF MY LAWN .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Minimal kernel, just enough OS around it to boot an X server, thus providing anything that understands X11 upwards to run on the "cloud" and use the Xterm to get the GUI in front of the user.
At the time the cloud was the various Unix boxen dotted around the campus and when I was a lad, there were still some X11R3 servers around.When the NC came out (remember them?
) we went up a layer of abstraction and it was the JVM that provided the framework, and at the client end this sat on top of what was effectively still an Xterm.And now the framework is Web 2.0 and the JVM (presumably - couldn't see a mention of that in any of the articles I looked at, but maybe it's just assumed?
) - a new level of abstraction and so X may or may not be the middle layer of the stack doing the actual graphics and HCI stuff.
Doesn't really matter.So: Better abstraction, due to layers on layers; longer distances and larger more complex apps thanks to explosive Internet growth and Moore's law.
But none of this is actually NEW.Anyhoo, I'm off to eBay to see if I can find myself a nice 19" colour Tektronix... and you GET OFF MY LAWN.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623333</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247071800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I do not think I have enjoyed using Windows this much since NT first got the Win95 shell.</i></p><p>Then you aren't a typical user. The OS is a means to and end (the end not even being apps, but the functions they give -- typically something to write letters, do accounts, organize and tweak photos, view/play media, use the web, edit video or audio, etc)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do not think I have enjoyed using Windows this much since NT first got the Win95 shell.Then you are n't a typical user .
The OS is a means to and end ( the end not even being apps , but the functions they give -- typically something to write letters , do accounts , organize and tweak photos , view/play media , use the web , edit video or audio , etc )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do not think I have enjoyed using Windows this much since NT first got the Win95 shell.Then you aren't a typical user.
The OS is a means to and end (the end not even being apps, but the functions they give -- typically something to write letters, do accounts, organize and tweak photos, view/play media, use the web, edit video or audio, etc)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620123</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28624973</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>indi0144</author>
	<datestamp>1247077560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well Running almost the same config as the GP (Win XP x86 + Ubuntu 9.04 x86 + Win 7 x64) I can say that win 7 is faster than Xp but not as much a Ubuntu in part because Win 7 is optimized for Multicore and, well, using more than 4Gb of RAM. Ubuntu may be faster but it has been a LOYAL PITA to set up the nVidia driver to work reliable on an embedded GeForce 8200 (even installing the latest from nVidia drivers site) It's not fault from the Ubuntu guys it's nVidia's fault but still I can't use my Ubuntu OS as long as I want, next time I'll choose ATI looks good in the future.<br><br>After installing Win 7, Windows Update found all the drivers needed and installed them so after the first reboot I had a very fast and stable OS. It's easy to set up, easy to admin, have a nice resource monitor and looks rather nice (looks matter for us the design guys who have to show our desktops to our clients, the same as Compiz had helped me to "sell" some Ubuntu installs). Even using and embedded and kinda old GPU lets me use Aero, which is by the looks more responsive and customizable than the Default XP GUI. Not every thing is joy, the usage of RAM in idle it's 900 Mb, It does not play nice with my AV, Nod32, keeps asking me to install one. I don't trust MS because it's too soon to know if Win 7 ends up being a trap with this massive RIAA lobbying (?).<br><br>For the guys like me that have to use some kind of windows, 7 it's worth the upgrade, but if you can make Linux to work flawless on your PC and do not need Win only Software running at full performance you should go Linux NOW! Best tool for the job isn't it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well Running almost the same config as the GP ( Win XP x86 + Ubuntu 9.04 x86 + Win 7 x64 ) I can say that win 7 is faster than Xp but not as much a Ubuntu in part because Win 7 is optimized for Multicore and , well , using more than 4Gb of RAM .
Ubuntu may be faster but it has been a LOYAL PITA to set up the nVidia driver to work reliable on an embedded GeForce 8200 ( even installing the latest from nVidia drivers site ) It 's not fault from the Ubuntu guys it 's nVidia 's fault but still I ca n't use my Ubuntu OS as long as I want , next time I 'll choose ATI looks good in the future.After installing Win 7 , Windows Update found all the drivers needed and installed them so after the first reboot I had a very fast and stable OS .
It 's easy to set up , easy to admin , have a nice resource monitor and looks rather nice ( looks matter for us the design guys who have to show our desktops to our clients , the same as Compiz had helped me to " sell " some Ubuntu installs ) .
Even using and embedded and kinda old GPU lets me use Aero , which is by the looks more responsive and customizable than the Default XP GUI .
Not every thing is joy , the usage of RAM in idle it 's 900 Mb , It does not play nice with my AV , Nod32 , keeps asking me to install one .
I do n't trust MS because it 's too soon to know if Win 7 ends up being a trap with this massive RIAA lobbying ( ?
) .For the guys like me that have to use some kind of windows , 7 it 's worth the upgrade , but if you can make Linux to work flawless on your PC and do not need Win only Software running at full performance you should go Linux NOW !
Best tool for the job is n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well Running almost the same config as the GP (Win XP x86 + Ubuntu 9.04 x86 + Win 7 x64) I can say that win 7 is faster than Xp but not as much a Ubuntu in part because Win 7 is optimized for Multicore and, well, using more than 4Gb of RAM.
Ubuntu may be faster but it has been a LOYAL PITA to set up the nVidia driver to work reliable on an embedded GeForce 8200 (even installing the latest from nVidia drivers site) It's not fault from the Ubuntu guys it's nVidia's fault but still I can't use my Ubuntu OS as long as I want, next time I'll choose ATI looks good in the future.After installing Win 7, Windows Update found all the drivers needed and installed them so after the first reboot I had a very fast and stable OS.
It's easy to set up, easy to admin, have a nice resource monitor and looks rather nice (looks matter for us the design guys who have to show our desktops to our clients, the same as Compiz had helped me to "sell" some Ubuntu installs).
Even using and embedded and kinda old GPU lets me use Aero, which is by the looks more responsive and customizable than the Default XP GUI.
Not every thing is joy, the usage of RAM in idle it's 900 Mb, It does not play nice with my AV, Nod32, keeps asking me to install one.
I don't trust MS because it's too soon to know if Win 7 ends up being a trap with this massive RIAA lobbying (?
).For the guys like me that have to use some kind of windows, 7 it's worth the upgrade, but if you can make Linux to work flawless on your PC and do not need Win only Software running at full performance you should go Linux NOW!
Best tool for the job isn't it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28626305</id>
	<title>Re:Mcdonaldsoft rival at last!</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1247082180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm amazed at the amount of negative responses from Linux fans... This is what we have all been waiting for - isn't it ??</p></div><p>I don't think so. What's unexpected about this announcement is that it looks like Google is essentially just using the Linux kernel, and throwing pretty much everything else away and rolling out their own, effectively dismissing a lot of FOSS and Linux desktop development in the last 15 years (KDE/Gnome, for example).</p><p>It won't end up being "Year of the Linux desktop". It will be "Year of the Google desktop", with Linux relegated to a tiny footnote, as is already happening with Android.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm amazed at the amount of negative responses from Linux fans... This is what we have all been waiting for - is n't it ?
? I do n't think so .
What 's unexpected about this announcement is that it looks like Google is essentially just using the Linux kernel , and throwing pretty much everything else away and rolling out their own , effectively dismissing a lot of FOSS and Linux desktop development in the last 15 years ( KDE/Gnome , for example ) .It wo n't end up being " Year of the Linux desktop " .
It will be " Year of the Google desktop " , with Linux relegated to a tiny footnote , as is already happening with Android .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm amazed at the amount of negative responses from Linux fans... This is what we have all been waiting for - isn't it ?
?I don't think so.
What's unexpected about this announcement is that it looks like Google is essentially just using the Linux kernel, and throwing pretty much everything else away and rolling out their own, effectively dismissing a lot of FOSS and Linux desktop development in the last 15 years (KDE/Gnome, for example).It won't end up being "Year of the Linux desktop".
It will be "Year of the Google desktop", with Linux relegated to a tiny footnote, as is already happening with Android.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620795</id>
	<title>Re:Chrome is the new Emacs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247062860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those who don't understand emacs are doomed to reinvent it... poorly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those who do n't understand emacs are doomed to reinvent it... poorly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those who don't understand emacs are doomed to reinvent it... poorly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621325</id>
	<title>OS == Browser</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1247064540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For years, we have been hearing about how you don't even need an OS any longer, and how a browser is enough.  There is a queue of usual objections to this idea:</p><ul><li>Where are my files stored?</li><li>How do I edit documents</li><li>What if I don't have internet access where I am?</li><li>Web mail clients just aren't as good</li></ul><p>Well, for the first time, I believe that an internet-only OS is now possible.  Most of these objections are dwindling.  Peopel backup their files online anyway, so the fear of having someone else in control is going away.  How many people have all their bills, passwords, etc. stored on a gmail server somewhere?  3G has made internet access almost ubiquitous, and web apps are getting a lot more sophisticated - enough that webmail is powerful enough for almost the most hard-core email users.</p><p>This may actually work now, whereas, even 2 years ago this would have seemed absurd.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For years , we have been hearing about how you do n't even need an OS any longer , and how a browser is enough .
There is a queue of usual objections to this idea : Where are my files stored ? How do I edit documentsWhat if I do n't have internet access where I am ? Web mail clients just are n't as goodWell , for the first time , I believe that an internet-only OS is now possible .
Most of these objections are dwindling .
Peopel backup their files online anyway , so the fear of having someone else in control is going away .
How many people have all their bills , passwords , etc .
stored on a gmail server somewhere ?
3G has made internet access almost ubiquitous , and web apps are getting a lot more sophisticated - enough that webmail is powerful enough for almost the most hard-core email users.This may actually work now , whereas , even 2 years ago this would have seemed absurd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For years, we have been hearing about how you don't even need an OS any longer, and how a browser is enough.
There is a queue of usual objections to this idea:Where are my files stored?How do I edit documentsWhat if I don't have internet access where I am?Web mail clients just aren't as goodWell, for the first time, I believe that an internet-only OS is now possible.
Most of these objections are dwindling.
Peopel backup their files online anyway, so the fear of having someone else in control is going away.
How many people have all their bills, passwords, etc.
stored on a gmail server somewhere?
3G has made internet access almost ubiquitous, and web apps are getting a lot more sophisticated - enough that webmail is powerful enough for almost the most hard-core email users.This may actually work now, whereas, even 2 years ago this would have seemed absurd.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625551</id>
	<title>Re:Does this mean</title>
	<author>cyfer2000</author>
	<datestamp>1247079600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>linux desktop forever!</htmltext>
<tokenext>linux desktop forever !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>linux desktop forever!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28633299</id>
	<title>WebOS anyone?</title>
	<author>schnoid</author>
	<datestamp>1247172960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just don't get why Google doesn't just buy out palm and turn WebOS (currently only on the Palm Pre) into a desktop OS. We all expect WebOS to eventually be ported over to netbooks and other devices, and truthfully it seems way more polished than android or any other mobile OS out there. It basically already has the capability to do everything google is looking to accomplish with this new Chrome OS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just do n't get why Google does n't just buy out palm and turn WebOS ( currently only on the Palm Pre ) into a desktop OS .
We all expect WebOS to eventually be ported over to netbooks and other devices , and truthfully it seems way more polished than android or any other mobile OS out there .
It basically already has the capability to do everything google is looking to accomplish with this new Chrome OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just don't get why Google doesn't just buy out palm and turn WebOS (currently only on the Palm Pre) into a desktop OS.
We all expect WebOS to eventually be ported over to netbooks and other devices, and truthfully it seems way more polished than android or any other mobile OS out there.
It basically already has the capability to do everything google is looking to accomplish with this new Chrome OS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621549</id>
	<title>Re:Automatically or automagically?</title>
	<author>ReeceTarbert</author>
	<datestamp>1247065440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>"All Web-based applications will automatically work and new applications can be written using your favorite Web technologies," the company said.</p></div><p>Depends on your definition of "automatically". From what I hear, there is this little prerequisite called "internet access".</p></div><p>Maybe I'm wrong, but I've noticed that Google doesn't mention <i>cloud computing</i> once in the press release, so what if the applications could also be hosted locally?
</p><p>
Think about it: if you run a web server and an SQL server on your computer, <i>web applications</i> don't really need an internet connection -- and of course  the moment you move the back-end online, the very same application can be used <i>"on any standards-based browser on Windows, Mac and Linux"</i> (as per the same press release).
</p><p>
RT.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" All Web-based applications will automatically work and new applications can be written using your favorite Web technologies , " the company said.Depends on your definition of " automatically " .
From what I hear , there is this little prerequisite called " internet access " .Maybe I 'm wrong , but I 've noticed that Google does n't mention cloud computing once in the press release , so what if the applications could also be hosted locally ?
Think about it : if you run a web server and an SQL server on your computer , web applications do n't really need an internet connection -- and of course the moment you move the back-end online , the very same application can be used " on any standards-based browser on Windows , Mac and Linux " ( as per the same press release ) .
RT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"All Web-based applications will automatically work and new applications can be written using your favorite Web technologies," the company said.Depends on your definition of "automatically".
From what I hear, there is this little prerequisite called "internet access".Maybe I'm wrong, but I've noticed that Google doesn't mention cloud computing once in the press release, so what if the applications could also be hosted locally?
Think about it: if you run a web server and an SQL server on your computer, web applications don't really need an internet connection -- and of course  the moment you move the back-end online, the very same application can be used "on any standards-based browser on Windows, Mac and Linux" (as per the same press release).
RT.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621749</id>
	<title>Google has finally jumped the shark</title>
	<author>MrData</author>
	<datestamp>1247066160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry, but Google have lost their CompSci mind on this one, most likely to placate MBAs who have taken the place over.
<br>
I specifically have issues with the following statement from the Google OS Blog:
<br> <br>
<i>"However, the operating systems that browsers run on were designed in an era where there was no web."</i>
<br> <br>
Yeah. And most OS's in use today were also designed when there were not graphics cards as well. The exception to this is Microsoft, who tightly coupled the OS to a GUI.
<br>
Now any decent CompSci grad knows tight coupling is an extremely bad thing, so the decision to pursue an OS tightly coupled to the web
(which we all know means Google's version of the web), will be a disaster.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but Google have lost their CompSci mind on this one , most likely to placate MBAs who have taken the place over .
I specifically have issues with the following statement from the Google OS Blog : " However , the operating systems that browsers run on were designed in an era where there was no web .
" Yeah .
And most OS 's in use today were also designed when there were not graphics cards as well .
The exception to this is Microsoft , who tightly coupled the OS to a GUI .
Now any decent CompSci grad knows tight coupling is an extremely bad thing , so the decision to pursue an OS tightly coupled to the web ( which we all know means Google 's version of the web ) , will be a disaster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but Google have lost their CompSci mind on this one, most likely to placate MBAs who have taken the place over.
I specifically have issues with the following statement from the Google OS Blog:
 
"However, the operating systems that browsers run on were designed in an era where there was no web.
"
 
Yeah.
And most OS's in use today were also designed when there were not graphics cards as well.
The exception to this is Microsoft, who tightly coupled the OS to a GUI.
Now any decent CompSci grad knows tight coupling is an extremely bad thing, so the decision to pursue an OS tightly coupled to the web
(which we all know means Google's version of the web), will be a disaster.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620425</id>
	<title>Re:Yawn, another distro?</title>
	<author>jimand</author>
	<datestamp>1247061300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's different because it's Google. I see your free email address is @gmail.com, not @hotmail.com. You've bought in to Google at least once already.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's different because it 's Google .
I see your free email address is @ gmail.com , not @ hotmail.com .
You 've bought in to Google at least once already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's different because it's Google.
I see your free email address is @gmail.com, not @hotmail.com.
You've bought in to Google at least once already.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28624365</id>
	<title>The "new windowing system" doesn't have to do much</title>
	<author>hey</author>
	<datestamp>1247075520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.... it just needs to do the things a browser needs which means: fonts and the [input] tag.<br>That's it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.... it just needs to do the things a browser needs which means : fonts and the [ input ] tag.That 's it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.... it just needs to do the things a browser needs which means: fonts and the [input] tag.That's it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620139</id>
	<title>Yawn, another distro?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247060100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>How is this going to be different from other Linux distros and associated GUI revamp projects that have sprung up promising "we're going to be better than Windows! Really!" over the years?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this going to be different from other Linux distros and associated GUI revamp projects that have sprung up promising " we 're going to be better than Windows !
Really ! " over the years ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this going to be different from other Linux distros and associated GUI revamp projects that have sprung up promising "we're going to be better than Windows!
Really!" over the years?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620951</id>
	<title>Re:Uh huh.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247063400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>They're offering it to OEMs (specifically notebook OEMs).  It's the same strategy they're using with Android, which seems to be working OK so far.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're offering it to OEMs ( specifically notebook OEMs ) .
It 's the same strategy they 're using with Android , which seems to be working OK so far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're offering it to OEMs (specifically notebook OEMs).
It's the same strategy they're using with Android, which seems to be working OK so far.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620687</id>
	<title>Re:Fear</title>
	<author>albedoa</author>
	<datestamp>1247062440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I wouldn't run an OS from a company who's business is knowing your consumer preferences</i>

You wouldn't run an OS from a company who knows exactly what you, as a consumer, want in an OS? Okay...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't run an OS from a company who 's business is knowing your consumer preferences You would n't run an OS from a company who knows exactly what you , as a consumer , want in an OS ?
Okay.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't run an OS from a company who's business is knowing your consumer preferences

You wouldn't run an OS from a company who knows exactly what you, as a consumer, want in an OS?
Okay...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619981</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619951</id>
	<title>Native Client</title>
	<author>Fzz</author>
	<datestamp>1247059140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder if they have <a href="http://code.google.com/p/nativeclient/" title="google.com">Google Native Client</a> [google.com] in mind when they say they're going to re-engineer security from the ground up?  Very cool technology.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if they have Google Native Client [ google.com ] in mind when they say they 're going to re-engineer security from the ground up ?
Very cool technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if they have Google Native Client [google.com] in mind when they say they're going to re-engineer security from the ground up?
Very cool technology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28627133</id>
	<title>Re:Mcdonaldsoft rival at last!</title>
	<author>arekmenner</author>
	<datestamp>1247085120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's a strong possibility that they will not, in fact, open source the code.
<br> <br>
Remember when Chrome was announced as open source, and all we got was Chromium, a broken hobble of a mess that breaks whenever you open a new tab in default Ubuntu?
<br> <br>
Remember when Android was open source, but then it turned out that it was released in 3 different levels of open sourcyness (Really could have just retrofitted open sourcedness, but I like this one better)? And, big surprise, the totally open source version is pretty gimped.
<br> <br>
That being said, I still welcome Chrome OS to the market. A new OS and a new window system will always mean at the very least new ideas, and especially because it's being made solely for netbooks, I think there's a lot for everyone to learn.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a strong possibility that they will not , in fact , open source the code .
Remember when Chrome was announced as open source , and all we got was Chromium , a broken hobble of a mess that breaks whenever you open a new tab in default Ubuntu ?
Remember when Android was open source , but then it turned out that it was released in 3 different levels of open sourcyness ( Really could have just retrofitted open sourcedness , but I like this one better ) ?
And , big surprise , the totally open source version is pretty gimped .
That being said , I still welcome Chrome OS to the market .
A new OS and a new window system will always mean at the very least new ideas , and especially because it 's being made solely for netbooks , I think there 's a lot for everyone to learn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a strong possibility that they will not, in fact, open source the code.
Remember when Chrome was announced as open source, and all we got was Chromium, a broken hobble of a mess that breaks whenever you open a new tab in default Ubuntu?
Remember when Android was open source, but then it turned out that it was released in 3 different levels of open sourcyness (Really could have just retrofitted open sourcedness, but I like this one better)?
And, big surprise, the totally open source version is pretty gimped.
That being said, I still welcome Chrome OS to the market.
A new OS and a new window system will always mean at the very least new ideas, and especially because it's being made solely for netbooks, I think there's a lot for everyone to learn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621043</id>
	<title>Don't focus on installing the OS</title>
	<author>Abroun</author>
	<datestamp>1247063700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lots of comments here are (rightly) skeptical that individuals will download a new OS.  But that's probably not Google's main intended audience.  Running on PCs is a happy (if necessary) side effect of the Intel-dominant world.

The most basic and original function of an OS is to mediate access to the hardware.  Windows got where it is today by 'owning' the hardware ecosystem, from the original IBM PC through all the gazillion peripherals, Intel iterations etc etc.  Then they cemented leadership by pushing the app suite (Office) that is the de-facto standard for business.

If you want to challenge Windows you have to tackle the hardware problem.    It's only recently that open-source has had the critical mass to address this.  And it's in the past 12-24 months that new classes of hardware have begun to emerge to challenge the PC.

So my guess is that Google sees the planets aligning, and are aiming NOT at displacing Windows on the classic PC platform, but creating a free and viable alternative for all the new classes of hardware they hope we'll be migrating to...netbooks, tablets, uber-phones, embedded, whatever.

Disruption!  Love it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lots of comments here are ( rightly ) skeptical that individuals will download a new OS .
But that 's probably not Google 's main intended audience .
Running on PCs is a happy ( if necessary ) side effect of the Intel-dominant world .
The most basic and original function of an OS is to mediate access to the hardware .
Windows got where it is today by 'owning ' the hardware ecosystem , from the original IBM PC through all the gazillion peripherals , Intel iterations etc etc .
Then they cemented leadership by pushing the app suite ( Office ) that is the de-facto standard for business .
If you want to challenge Windows you have to tackle the hardware problem .
It 's only recently that open-source has had the critical mass to address this .
And it 's in the past 12-24 months that new classes of hardware have begun to emerge to challenge the PC .
So my guess is that Google sees the planets aligning , and are aiming NOT at displacing Windows on the classic PC platform , but creating a free and viable alternative for all the new classes of hardware they hope we 'll be migrating to...netbooks , tablets , uber-phones , embedded , whatever .
Disruption ! Love it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lots of comments here are (rightly) skeptical that individuals will download a new OS.
But that's probably not Google's main intended audience.
Running on PCs is a happy (if necessary) side effect of the Intel-dominant world.
The most basic and original function of an OS is to mediate access to the hardware.
Windows got where it is today by 'owning' the hardware ecosystem, from the original IBM PC through all the gazillion peripherals, Intel iterations etc etc.
Then they cemented leadership by pushing the app suite (Office) that is the de-facto standard for business.
If you want to challenge Windows you have to tackle the hardware problem.
It's only recently that open-source has had the critical mass to address this.
And it's in the past 12-24 months that new classes of hardware have begun to emerge to challenge the PC.
So my guess is that Google sees the planets aligning, and are aiming NOT at displacing Windows on the classic PC platform, but creating a free and viable alternative for all the new classes of hardware they hope we'll be migrating to...netbooks, tablets, uber-phones, embedded, whatever.
Disruption!  Love it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621603</id>
	<title>Re:Mcdonaldsoft rival at last!</title>
	<author>EvilNTUser</author>
	<datestamp>1247065740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not what I have been waiting for by a long shot.  We "Linux fans" use Linux as a means to run GNU, not buzzword webos UI.</p><p>"Linux" is becoming a marketing gimmick.  Us starting to call it GNU/Linux has never made more sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not what I have been waiting for by a long shot .
We " Linux fans " use Linux as a means to run GNU , not buzzword webos UI .
" Linux " is becoming a marketing gimmick .
Us starting to call it GNU/Linux has never made more sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not what I have been waiting for by a long shot.
We "Linux fans" use Linux as a means to run GNU, not buzzword webos UI.
"Linux" is becoming a marketing gimmick.
Us starting to call it GNU/Linux has never made more sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620301</id>
	<title>Great</title>
	<author>squoozer</author>
	<datestamp>1247060820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this is really good news for Linux but I'm going to hold off on breaking out the party hats and balloons for a little while. My main reservation is that it sounds like Google is changing a lot of the basic infrastructure. I'm sure they have studied all aspects of their proposed changes in detail but I'd like to see their reasoning as to why it needs to change. What we have at the moment is not perfect but it's understood and has been shown to work fairly well for many years.</p><p>Personally, I would have liked to have seen them team up with Ubuntu and produce a truly world class operating system there. Starting almost from scratch and developing a completely new windowing system seems like a very hard way to enter the market. I suppose though is you are going to re-develop a major portion of a Linux distribution the windowing system would be the place to do it. I've got nothing particularly against X but it feels clunky and stuck in the past.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is really good news for Linux but I 'm going to hold off on breaking out the party hats and balloons for a little while .
My main reservation is that it sounds like Google is changing a lot of the basic infrastructure .
I 'm sure they have studied all aspects of their proposed changes in detail but I 'd like to see their reasoning as to why it needs to change .
What we have at the moment is not perfect but it 's understood and has been shown to work fairly well for many years.Personally , I would have liked to have seen them team up with Ubuntu and produce a truly world class operating system there .
Starting almost from scratch and developing a completely new windowing system seems like a very hard way to enter the market .
I suppose though is you are going to re-develop a major portion of a Linux distribution the windowing system would be the place to do it .
I 've got nothing particularly against X but it feels clunky and stuck in the past .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this is really good news for Linux but I'm going to hold off on breaking out the party hats and balloons for a little while.
My main reservation is that it sounds like Google is changing a lot of the basic infrastructure.
I'm sure they have studied all aspects of their proposed changes in detail but I'd like to see their reasoning as to why it needs to change.
What we have at the moment is not perfect but it's understood and has been shown to work fairly well for many years.Personally, I would have liked to have seen them team up with Ubuntu and produce a truly world class operating system there.
Starting almost from scratch and developing a completely new windowing system seems like a very hard way to enter the market.
I suppose though is you are going to re-develop a major portion of a Linux distribution the windowing system would be the place to do it.
I've got nothing particularly against X but it feels clunky and stuck in the past.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623423</id>
	<title>Re:Yawn, another distro?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247072160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another Linux distro... oh god...</p><p>how many chrome based OS are yet to come?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another Linux distro... oh god...how many chrome based OS are yet to come ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another Linux distro... oh god...how many chrome based OS are yet to come?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621153</id>
	<title>Google + Linux = OEM Linux Drivers</title>
	<author>HighOrbit</author>
	<datestamp>1247064060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well my hope is that any PC or Netbook OEM who supports ChromeOS will have to write kernel drivers for all their own hardware and only buy from suppliers who aslo support linux. I hope this will also provide impetus for third party devices like printers, cameras, etc, etc to provide OEM supported linux kernel drivers. While I am imagining utopia, instead of binary blobs, maybe they will even be willing to give out specficiations so other people like BSD can make drivers too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well my hope is that any PC or Netbook OEM who supports ChromeOS will have to write kernel drivers for all their own hardware and only buy from suppliers who aslo support linux .
I hope this will also provide impetus for third party devices like printers , cameras , etc , etc to provide OEM supported linux kernel drivers .
While I am imagining utopia , instead of binary blobs , maybe they will even be willing to give out specficiations so other people like BSD can make drivers too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well my hope is that any PC or Netbook OEM who supports ChromeOS will have to write kernel drivers for all their own hardware and only buy from suppliers who aslo support linux.
I hope this will also provide impetus for third party devices like printers, cameras, etc, etc to provide OEM supported linux kernel drivers.
While I am imagining utopia, instead of binary blobs, maybe they will even be willing to give out specficiations so other people like BSD can make drivers too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623179</id>
	<title>How to monetize Google Chrome OS</title>
	<author>OutputLogic</author>
	<datestamp>1247071200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How to monetize Google Chrome OS:<br> <br>
 - short Microsoft stock<br>
 - long Google<br>
 - write a book on Chrome OS<br>
 - add "10 years of Chrome OS experience" to your resume <br>
 - offer PowerPC and other processors support<br>
 - register lots of Chrome OS-related URLs <br>

<br> <br>
<a href="http://outputlogic.com/" title="outputlogic.com" rel="nofollow">OutputLogic</a> [outputlogic.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>How to monetize Google Chrome OS : - short Microsoft stock - long Google - write a book on Chrome OS - add " 10 years of Chrome OS experience " to your resume - offer PowerPC and other processors support - register lots of Chrome OS-related URLs OutputLogic [ outputlogic.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How to monetize Google Chrome OS: 
 - short Microsoft stock
 - long Google
 - write a book on Chrome OS
 - add "10 years of Chrome OS experience" to your resume 
 - offer PowerPC and other processors support
 - register lots of Chrome OS-related URLs 

 
OutputLogic [outputlogic.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620891</id>
	<title>Stop Google before the damage is too serious</title>
	<author>12357bd</author>
	<datestamp>1247063100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google is using open source for his interests, and against the community.</p><p>They are taking everything but does not return a proportionate contribution. Just note how they take the kernel, but avoid to contribute to the GUi arena. This will fragmentate even more the free software landscape, and Google it's the only one wining here.</p><p> Google is using open source to try to close the internet. The Linux kernel and basic related utilities should be set under the Afero GPL v3 license ASAP!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is using open source for his interests , and against the community.They are taking everything but does not return a proportionate contribution .
Just note how they take the kernel , but avoid to contribute to the GUi arena .
This will fragmentate even more the free software landscape , and Google it 's the only one wining here .
Google is using open source to try to close the internet .
The Linux kernel and basic related utilities should be set under the Afero GPL v3 license ASAP !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is using open source for his interests, and against the community.They are taking everything but does not return a proportionate contribution.
Just note how they take the kernel, but avoid to contribute to the GUi arena.
This will fragmentate even more the free software landscape, and Google it's the only one wining here.
Google is using open source to try to close the internet.
The Linux kernel and basic related utilities should be set under the Afero GPL v3 license ASAP!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28626253</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>gbarules2999</author>
	<datestamp>1247082000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Eh. I didn't like Windows 7 that much. I actually prefer Vista, as long as the machine is powerful enough. That bottom taskbar pisses me off to no end (there's a reason why I didn't buy a Mac, Microsoft). But they both bury options under dozens of menus that I can't navigate very quickly yet, even after several months, which is odd considering how quickly I adjusted to XP (after upgrading from 98), Gnome and KDE.<br> <br>Probably just growing pains, but I can't share your enthusiasm.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Eh .
I did n't like Windows 7 that much .
I actually prefer Vista , as long as the machine is powerful enough .
That bottom taskbar pisses me off to no end ( there 's a reason why I did n't buy a Mac , Microsoft ) .
But they both bury options under dozens of menus that I ca n't navigate very quickly yet , even after several months , which is odd considering how quickly I adjusted to XP ( after upgrading from 98 ) , Gnome and KDE .
Probably just growing pains , but I ca n't share your enthusiasm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eh.
I didn't like Windows 7 that much.
I actually prefer Vista, as long as the machine is powerful enough.
That bottom taskbar pisses me off to no end (there's a reason why I didn't buy a Mac, Microsoft).
But they both bury options under dozens of menus that I can't navigate very quickly yet, even after several months, which is odd considering how quickly I adjusted to XP (after upgrading from 98), Gnome and KDE.
Probably just growing pains, but I can't share your enthusiasm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620123</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625081</id>
	<title>Re:Competition is good, baby!</title>
	<author>chammy</author>
	<datestamp>1247077920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can I assume everthing I do (or browse) will be reported back to Google?</p></div><p>If they're really going to release the source code this won't be much of a problem, assuming they don't do something dumb like proxy everything through their own server or something.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can I assume everthing I do ( or browse ) will be reported back to Google ? If they 're really going to release the source code this wo n't be much of a problem , assuming they do n't do something dumb like proxy everything through their own server or something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can I assume everthing I do (or browse) will be reported back to Google?If they're really going to release the source code this won't be much of a problem, assuming they don't do something dumb like proxy everything through their own server or something.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621341</id>
	<title>Re:The web is NOT the OS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247064600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Would you feel better if it was Apple announcing the Safari OS? Or Mozilla announcing the Firefox OS? Or Microsoft announcing the Internet Explorer OS?</i></p><p>At least Apple, Mozilla, and Microsoft aren't advertising companies. So, yeah, I would.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you feel better if it was Apple announcing the Safari OS ?
Or Mozilla announcing the Firefox OS ?
Or Microsoft announcing the Internet Explorer OS ? At least Apple , Mozilla , and Microsoft are n't advertising companies .
So , yeah , I would .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you feel better if it was Apple announcing the Safari OS?
Or Mozilla announcing the Firefox OS?
Or Microsoft announcing the Internet Explorer OS?At least Apple, Mozilla, and Microsoft aren't advertising companies.
So, yeah, I would.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621317</id>
	<title>Re:The web is NOT the OS</title>
	<author>bigsteve@dstc</author>
	<datestamp>1247064540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>95\% of users don't care whether stuff on their computer is applications, web applications or blue cheese.  The just want the computer to be cheap, fast and easy to use for looking at websites, reading their email, writing documents and things like that.  The way I read it, Chrome OS is aimed this 95\%.</htmltext>
<tokenext>95 \ % of users do n't care whether stuff on their computer is applications , web applications or blue cheese .
The just want the computer to be cheap , fast and easy to use for looking at websites , reading their email , writing documents and things like that .
The way I read it , Chrome OS is aimed this 95 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>95\% of users don't care whether stuff on their computer is applications, web applications or blue cheese.
The just want the computer to be cheap, fast and easy to use for looking at websites, reading their email, writing documents and things like that.
The way I read it, Chrome OS is aimed this 95\%.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620417</id>
	<title>Re:Fear</title>
	<author>MadFarmAnimalz</author>
	<datestamp>1247061300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I'm sure there's a positive side of this story too, but I let that to another user.</i>
<p>
I'm looking forward to leaked Microsoft emails about deliveries of fresh pants to Ballmer's office.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure there 's a positive side of this story too , but I let that to another user .
I 'm looking forward to leaked Microsoft emails about deliveries of fresh pants to Ballmer 's office .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure there's a positive side of this story too, but I let that to another user.
I'm looking forward to leaked Microsoft emails about deliveries of fresh pants to Ballmer's office.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619981</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625889</id>
	<title>Re:The web is NOT the OS</title>
	<author>bgspence</author>
	<datestamp>1247080740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, I guess I can't sell you a netbook.</p><p>A netbook is NOT a PC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , I guess I ca n't sell you a netbook.A netbook is NOT a PC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, I guess I can't sell you a netbook.A netbook is NOT a PC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28624783</id>
	<title>Re:Will it support Internet Explorer?</title>
	<author>EdgeyEdgey</author>
	<datestamp>1247076900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the Windows/IE bundling issue was a monopolies issue
<br>
Can you have a monopoly if you give something away for free?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the Windows/IE bundling issue was a monopolies issue Can you have a monopoly if you give something away for free ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the Windows/IE bundling issue was a monopolies issue

Can you have a monopoly if you give something away for free?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623111</id>
	<title>Re:Automatically or automagically?</title>
	<author>molnarcs</author>
	<datestamp>1247070960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But in the meantime, it's excellent marketing - the news is everywhere, it made it to the BBC headlines, it's on NYT, etc... Now if you consider that 99\% of pc users never heard about Chrome before...<p>

Also, you probably won't need to stay online all the time to do what you usually do on your PC. Lots of apps have nice web interfaces run locally from your computer in a browser window. VLC has a web interface, some music players, dvd authoring software, etc. Even Google Docs could use a local client running in Chrome that synchronizes with your online account when net connection is available.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But in the meantime , it 's excellent marketing - the news is everywhere , it made it to the BBC headlines , it 's on NYT , etc... Now if you consider that 99 \ % of pc users never heard about Chrome before.. . Also , you probably wo n't need to stay online all the time to do what you usually do on your PC .
Lots of apps have nice web interfaces run locally from your computer in a browser window .
VLC has a web interface , some music players , dvd authoring software , etc .
Even Google Docs could use a local client running in Chrome that synchronizes with your online account when net connection is available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But in the meantime, it's excellent marketing - the news is everywhere, it made it to the BBC headlines, it's on NYT, etc... Now if you consider that 99\% of pc users never heard about Chrome before...

Also, you probably won't need to stay online all the time to do what you usually do on your PC.
Lots of apps have nice web interfaces run locally from your computer in a browser window.
VLC has a web interface, some music players, dvd authoring software, etc.
Even Google Docs could use a local client running in Chrome that synchronizes with your online account when net connection is available.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620877</id>
	<title>Re:Why would I want this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247063100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You wouldn't want this, you self-centered asshole.  This OS is not intended for Linux zealots.  Never was.  It simply gives portable devices a web browser in the cheapest (reused kernel) and fastest (stripped down to run just a browser) way possible.  There are people who would find this useful.  You aren't one of them.  I'm OK with that, and I know a lot of other people will be too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You would n't want this , you self-centered asshole .
This OS is not intended for Linux zealots .
Never was .
It simply gives portable devices a web browser in the cheapest ( reused kernel ) and fastest ( stripped down to run just a browser ) way possible .
There are people who would find this useful .
You are n't one of them .
I 'm OK with that , and I know a lot of other people will be too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You wouldn't want this, you self-centered asshole.
This OS is not intended for Linux zealots.
Never was.
It simply gives portable devices a web browser in the cheapest (reused kernel) and fastest (stripped down to run just a browser) way possible.
There are people who would find this useful.
You aren't one of them.
I'm OK with that, and I know a lot of other people will be too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28630355</id>
	<title>Re:The web is NOT the OS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247058420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How does google earth not have a point?  You can see a fucking satellite photo of any place in the world, by spinning a globe around and picking the exact location you want to see.  How is that not incredible?  I'm sure these satellite photos existed before but they were nowhere near as easy for the average person to access.  I guess if you don't give two shits about the outside world then Google Earth wouldn't matter to you, but for the rest of us it's a great way to see the rest of the world without actually going there, or even to plan where you might want to go someday.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How does google earth not have a point ?
You can see a fucking satellite photo of any place in the world , by spinning a globe around and picking the exact location you want to see .
How is that not incredible ?
I 'm sure these satellite photos existed before but they were nowhere near as easy for the average person to access .
I guess if you do n't give two shits about the outside world then Google Earth would n't matter to you , but for the rest of us it 's a great way to see the rest of the world without actually going there , or even to plan where you might want to go someday .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does google earth not have a point?
You can see a fucking satellite photo of any place in the world, by spinning a globe around and picking the exact location you want to see.
How is that not incredible?
I'm sure these satellite photos existed before but they were nowhere near as easy for the average person to access.
I guess if you don't give two shits about the outside world then Google Earth wouldn't matter to you, but for the rest of us it's a great way to see the rest of the world without actually going there, or even to plan where you might want to go someday.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620747</id>
	<title>Re:Yawn, another distro?</title>
	<author>kaiser423</author>
	<datestamp>1247062620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The fact that it's google?  Seems like a pretty big key to me...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that it 's google ?
Seems like a pretty big key to me.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that it's google?
Seems like a pretty big key to me...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621875</id>
	<title>plusses and minuses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247066700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the big minus will be *if* it is relatively "locked" into cloud services and leaves local applications out of the picture. The big plus is that many drivers for Linux laptops could potentially be developed. I wrote more extensively about this in my blog: http://freeplannet.blogspot.com/2009/07/free-as-in-operating-systems-chapter.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the big minus will be * if * it is relatively " locked " into cloud services and leaves local applications out of the picture .
The big plus is that many drivers for Linux laptops could potentially be developed .
I wrote more extensively about this in my blog : http : //freeplannet.blogspot.com/2009/07/free-as-in-operating-systems-chapter.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the big minus will be *if* it is relatively "locked" into cloud services and leaves local applications out of the picture.
The big plus is that many drivers for Linux laptops could potentially be developed.
I wrote more extensively about this in my blog: http://freeplannet.blogspot.com/2009/07/free-as-in-operating-systems-chapter.html</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621521</id>
	<title>Re:Fast web OS needed!</title>
	<author>Aphonia</author>
	<datestamp>1247065320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Asus, Lenovo both employ "Splashtop" which does this.



And a lot of machines have quick startups from hibernate/suspend modes, so the "bloated OS" really may not bother people as much as people think it is - when is the last time you rebooted your machine?



Plus, people may use those email clients such as outlook and what not for more than just their email - eg. syncing with windows mobile.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Asus , Lenovo both employ " Splashtop " which does this .
And a lot of machines have quick startups from hibernate/suspend modes , so the " bloated OS " really may not bother people as much as people think it is - when is the last time you rebooted your machine ?
Plus , people may use those email clients such as outlook and what not for more than just their email - eg .
syncing with windows mobile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Asus, Lenovo both employ "Splashtop" which does this.
And a lot of machines have quick startups from hibernate/suspend modes, so the "bloated OS" really may not bother people as much as people think it is - when is the last time you rebooted your machine?
Plus, people may use those email clients such as outlook and what not for more than just their email - eg.
syncing with windows mobile.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622471</id>
	<title>Re:Fast web OS needed!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247068800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On a side note: I can't wait until a new OS finally achieves the startup times of the good old trusy Commodore 64.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div><p>Well, getting the BASIC prompt is about the same time as getting the first BIOS texts.  You can definitely interact with BASIC faster.  BIOS takes ages to probe the hardware.<br>Application launching won't be much of a competition.  I recall it took C64 something like half an hour to load a program from C-tape, assuming the tape was properly positioned.  Otherwise you had to scan around manually for minutes.  Floppy disks eliminated manual scanning, but weren't really that much faster.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On a side note : I ca n't wait until a new OS finally achieves the startup times of the good old trusy Commodore 64. : - ) Well , getting the BASIC prompt is about the same time as getting the first BIOS texts .
You can definitely interact with BASIC faster .
BIOS takes ages to probe the hardware.Application launching wo n't be much of a competition .
I recall it took C64 something like half an hour to load a program from C-tape , assuming the tape was properly positioned .
Otherwise you had to scan around manually for minutes .
Floppy disks eliminated manual scanning , but were n't really that much faster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On a side note: I can't wait until a new OS finally achieves the startup times of the good old trusy Commodore 64. :-)Well, getting the BASIC prompt is about the same time as getting the first BIOS texts.
You can definitely interact with BASIC faster.
BIOS takes ages to probe the hardware.Application launching won't be much of a competition.
I recall it took C64 something like half an hour to load a program from C-tape, assuming the tape was properly positioned.
Otherwise you had to scan around manually for minutes.
Floppy disks eliminated manual scanning, but weren't really that much faster.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28631509</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>ignavus</author>
	<datestamp>1247067000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have Vista<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and Ubuntu 8 on my machine, each with its own drive, and while Vista is a tad bit better than Ubuntu...</p></div><p>I have Vista and Ubuntu on a Lenovo X61 laptop. Vista is as slow as molasses - all gloss and frustration. Booting, updating software, and general operation is a pain. Ubuntu boots fast, works fast, updates fast. And has a vast array of free software to install.</p><p>Vista is more than a tad <em>worse</em> than Ubuntu.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have Vista ... and Ubuntu 8 on my machine , each with its own drive , and while Vista is a tad bit better than Ubuntu...I have Vista and Ubuntu on a Lenovo X61 laptop .
Vista is as slow as molasses - all gloss and frustration .
Booting , updating software , and general operation is a pain .
Ubuntu boots fast , works fast , updates fast .
And has a vast array of free software to install.Vista is more than a tad worse than Ubuntu .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have Vista ... and Ubuntu 8 on my machine, each with its own drive, and while Vista is a tad bit better than Ubuntu...I have Vista and Ubuntu on a Lenovo X61 laptop.
Vista is as slow as molasses - all gloss and frustration.
Booting, updating software, and general operation is a pain.
Ubuntu boots fast, works fast, updates fast.
And has a vast array of free software to install.Vista is more than a tad worse than Ubuntu.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620123</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28634921</id>
	<title>IE Google App?</title>
	<author>DjDanny</author>
	<datestamp>1247146560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has anybody got a version of IE written as a Google App so I can run it in the Chrome OS?</p><p>thanks</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has anybody got a version of IE written as a Google App so I can run it in the Chrome OS ? thanks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has anybody got a version of IE written as a Google App so I can run it in the Chrome OS?thanks</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619929</id>
	<title>Competition is good, baby!</title>
	<author>bheer</author>
	<datestamp>1247058900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is excellent news, because a commercial vendor with *lots* of clout will - finally! - push Linux to OEMs. Like Android, they really want to go after the OEM market with this one. Don't be fooled by the "it's mainly for web browsing" spin - You might not run AutoCAD or Photoshop yet (or ever) on it, but apps (especially HTML5 enabled apps) for home users will follow, targeting the XP/Vista Home Edition user types. And this would be sweet for corporate desktop deployments -- no virus hassles, little to update, most stuff stored on the server (assuming they get offline support sorted out well, of course).</p><p>Fingers crossed that Google's "Linux" will have more polish than what's there in distros so far. Microsoft "love our licensing or leave" and Linux distros "we're open source so live with the flaws" will then both be on notice.</p><p>Interestingly, Chrome OS is apparently a bare-bones Linux + a "new windowing system" + the Chrome browser.</p><p>I can't wait to see what the new windowing system is. I'd really like to see some innovation there, much like OSX created an amazing GUI layer on top what is essentially Mach/BSD. The challenge to Microsoft aside, this will be a wake-up call to Gnome/KDE. The good news is, because this ought to be open source, the OSS community can really get behind this and improve other products.</p><p>And oh, anyone else notice the irony that the Chrome \_browser\_ for Linux seems largely like an afterthought right now? Still, way to go, Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is excellent news , because a commercial vendor with * lots * of clout will - finally !
- push Linux to OEMs .
Like Android , they really want to go after the OEM market with this one .
Do n't be fooled by the " it 's mainly for web browsing " spin - You might not run AutoCAD or Photoshop yet ( or ever ) on it , but apps ( especially HTML5 enabled apps ) for home users will follow , targeting the XP/Vista Home Edition user types .
And this would be sweet for corporate desktop deployments -- no virus hassles , little to update , most stuff stored on the server ( assuming they get offline support sorted out well , of course ) .Fingers crossed that Google 's " Linux " will have more polish than what 's there in distros so far .
Microsoft " love our licensing or leave " and Linux distros " we 're open source so live with the flaws " will then both be on notice.Interestingly , Chrome OS is apparently a bare-bones Linux + a " new windowing system " + the Chrome browser.I ca n't wait to see what the new windowing system is .
I 'd really like to see some innovation there , much like OSX created an amazing GUI layer on top what is essentially Mach/BSD .
The challenge to Microsoft aside , this will be a wake-up call to Gnome/KDE .
The good news is , because this ought to be open source , the OSS community can really get behind this and improve other products.And oh , anyone else notice the irony that the Chrome \ _browser \ _ for Linux seems largely like an afterthought right now ?
Still , way to go , Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is excellent news, because a commercial vendor with *lots* of clout will - finally!
- push Linux to OEMs.
Like Android, they really want to go after the OEM market with this one.
Don't be fooled by the "it's mainly for web browsing" spin - You might not run AutoCAD or Photoshop yet (or ever) on it, but apps (especially HTML5 enabled apps) for home users will follow, targeting the XP/Vista Home Edition user types.
And this would be sweet for corporate desktop deployments -- no virus hassles, little to update, most stuff stored on the server (assuming they get offline support sorted out well, of course).Fingers crossed that Google's "Linux" will have more polish than what's there in distros so far.
Microsoft "love our licensing or leave" and Linux distros "we're open source so live with the flaws" will then both be on notice.Interestingly, Chrome OS is apparently a bare-bones Linux + a "new windowing system" + the Chrome browser.I can't wait to see what the new windowing system is.
I'd really like to see some innovation there, much like OSX created an amazing GUI layer on top what is essentially Mach/BSD.
The challenge to Microsoft aside, this will be a wake-up call to Gnome/KDE.
The good news is, because this ought to be open source, the OSS community can really get behind this and improve other products.And oh, anyone else notice the irony that the Chrome \_browser\_ for Linux seems largely like an afterthought right now?
Still, way to go, Google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623925</id>
	<title>Re:Fast web OS needed!</title>
	<author>Kristoph</author>
	<datestamp>1247073960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed, and I would wager that they will push this OS on cheap netbooks sold through telecom providers with a subsidy. So you'll be able to get the device, the OS and the applications for free, with  $29 a month on 1 or 2 year plan or something like that.</p><p>(Google will get all your data so it can show you ads.)</p><p>]{</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed , and I would wager that they will push this OS on cheap netbooks sold through telecom providers with a subsidy .
So you 'll be able to get the device , the OS and the applications for free , with $ 29 a month on 1 or 2 year plan or something like that .
( Google will get all your data so it can show you ads .
) ] {</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed, and I would wager that they will push this OS on cheap netbooks sold through telecom providers with a subsidy.
So you'll be able to get the device, the OS and the applications for free, with  $29 a month on 1 or 2 year plan or something like that.
(Google will get all your data so it can show you ads.
)]{</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623973</id>
	<title>Re:Web Is (not) The Platform</title>
	<author>flibuste</author>
	<datestamp>1247074140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am in the same opinion, with an addition: if the web is the best way to deliver information, why does this delivery has to happen in one god application called "Teh Web Browser". I think the web browser should die, and other UI paradigms are required to make this delivery happen, and really innovate.</p><p>Google OS promises to be less than innovative, which is annoying as it just adds noise to the existing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am in the same opinion , with an addition : if the web is the best way to deliver information , why does this delivery has to happen in one god application called " Teh Web Browser " .
I think the web browser should die , and other UI paradigms are required to make this delivery happen , and really innovate.Google OS promises to be less than innovative , which is annoying as it just adds noise to the existing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am in the same opinion, with an addition: if the web is the best way to deliver information, why does this delivery has to happen in one god application called "Teh Web Browser".
I think the web browser should die, and other UI paradigms are required to make this delivery happen, and really innovate.Google OS promises to be less than innovative, which is annoying as it just adds noise to the existing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623039</id>
	<title>Re:Automatically or automagically?</title>
	<author>coop0030</author>
	<datestamp>1247070660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Depends on your definition of "automatically". From what I hear, there is this little prerequisite called "internet access".</p></div><p>
If I had to take a guess, I'd imagine Google has already thought of this obvious issue.  In fact, I bet Google Gears would fit in quite nicely in the Chrome OS.  It seems to work well enough for offline access for a few of their apps already.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Depends on your definition of " automatically " .
From what I hear , there is this little prerequisite called " internet access " .
If I had to take a guess , I 'd imagine Google has already thought of this obvious issue .
In fact , I bet Google Gears would fit in quite nicely in the Chrome OS .
It seems to work well enough for offline access for a few of their apps already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depends on your definition of "automatically".
From what I hear, there is this little prerequisite called "internet access".
If I had to take a guess, I'd imagine Google has already thought of this obvious issue.
In fact, I bet Google Gears would fit in quite nicely in the Chrome OS.
It seems to work well enough for offline access for a few of their apps already.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28666263</id>
	<title>Re:Why would I want this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247396220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think this will ever be the first OS of people working with it, it will be good to read mails, chat and even read and edit your documents but photo management and film editing will be difficult. Since it will not be the firs OS you can make people install Chrome OS like you can install ubuntu with wubi I see no problem why people would be afraid to install it that way. I also see no reason why we should be afraid of it: it's open source and if it flops it will not damage the name of linux since the normal user won't know it's linux based.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think this will ever be the first OS of people working with it , it will be good to read mails , chat and even read and edit your documents but photo management and film editing will be difficult .
Since it will not be the firs OS you can make people install Chrome OS like you can install ubuntu with wubi I see no problem why people would be afraid to install it that way .
I also see no reason why we should be afraid of it : it 's open source and if it flops it will not damage the name of linux since the normal user wo n't know it 's linux based .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think this will ever be the first OS of people working with it, it will be good to read mails, chat and even read and edit your documents but photo management and film editing will be difficult.
Since it will not be the firs OS you can make people install Chrome OS like you can install ubuntu with wubi I see no problem why people would be afraid to install it that way.
I also see no reason why we should be afraid of it: it's open source and if it flops it will not damage the name of linux since the normal user won't know it's linux based.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620005</id>
	<title>Google should not screw this up...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247059380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean, Google should maintain sanity within the Chrome OS ecosystem by making sure it does not fragment (read morph) into what we have in Linux land -- a deplorable situation.</p><p>This also puts more pressure on Google. They should now beef up their online application presence. To me, I find Google Docs still wanting compared to the competition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , Google should maintain sanity within the Chrome OS ecosystem by making sure it does not fragment ( read morph ) into what we have in Linux land -- a deplorable situation.This also puts more pressure on Google .
They should now beef up their online application presence .
To me , I find Google Docs still wanting compared to the competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, Google should maintain sanity within the Chrome OS ecosystem by making sure it does not fragment (read morph) into what we have in Linux land -- a deplorable situation.This also puts more pressure on Google.
They should now beef up their online application presence.
To me, I find Google Docs still wanting compared to the competition.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620395</id>
	<title>Re:Pixel-level access?</title>
	<author>Joseph Lam</author>
	<datestamp>1247061240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ain't those things what HTML5 is aiming to address?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ai n't those things what HTML5 is aiming to address ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ain't those things what HTML5 is aiming to address?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620145</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620789</id>
	<title>Re:Yawn, another distro?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247062800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How is this going to be different from other Linux distros and associated GUI revamp projects that have sprung up promising "we're going to be better than Windows! Really!" over the years?</p></div><p>It isn't.  This one will be better than Windows too<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this going to be different from other Linux distros and associated GUI revamp projects that have sprung up promising " we 're going to be better than Windows !
Really ! " over the years ? It is n't .
This one will be better than Windows too .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this going to be different from other Linux distros and associated GUI revamp projects that have sprung up promising "we're going to be better than Windows!
Really!" over the years?It isn't.
This one will be better than Windows too ...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621177</id>
	<title>I hereby name it Chromix</title>
	<author>awpoopy</author>
	<datestamp>1247064060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>I hereby name it Chromix</b>.
<br>
You heard it here first - on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.
<br>
Can't wait to download it and take it for a spin.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hereby name it Chromix .
You heard it here first - on / .
Ca n't wait to download it and take it for a spin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hereby name it Chromix.
You heard it here first - on /.
Can't wait to download it and take it for a spin.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621761</id>
	<title>My hopes for Google Chrome OS</title>
	<author>Zoxed</author>
	<datestamp>1247066220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My hope is that by Google using it's muscle to kicking the Nettop manufactures to allow Linux to reach down deep for device initialization then boot and/or resume times will improve in a way that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coreboot" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coreboot</a> [wikipedia.org] (was LinuxBIOS) have been unable to do: mostly due to manufactures non-cooperation.</p><p>And if these patches are GPLed they can either go into the main Linux kernel, or be patched into any other distro for that device.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My hope is that by Google using it 's muscle to kicking the Nettop manufactures to allow Linux to reach down deep for device initialization then boot and/or resume times will improve in a way that http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coreboot [ wikipedia.org ] ( was LinuxBIOS ) have been unable to do : mostly due to manufactures non-cooperation.And if these patches are GPLed they can either go into the main Linux kernel , or be patched into any other distro for that device .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My hope is that by Google using it's muscle to kicking the Nettop manufactures to allow Linux to reach down deep for device initialization then boot and/or resume times will improve in a way that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coreboot [wikipedia.org] (was LinuxBIOS) have been unable to do: mostly due to manufactures non-cooperation.And if these patches are GPLed they can either go into the main Linux kernel, or be patched into any other distro for that device.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28632449</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Nicolay77</author>
	<datestamp>1247075400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I totally agree with you!!</p><p>Windows 7 Rulez!!</p><p>(Really guys, this is the only way to get rid of IE6, please support Win7)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I totally agree with you !
! Windows 7 Rulez ! !
( Really guys , this is the only way to get rid of IE6 , please support Win7 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I totally agree with you!
!Windows 7 Rulez!!
(Really guys, this is the only way to get rid of IE6, please support Win7)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620123</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620483</id>
	<title>just like all other non MS OSs...</title>
	<author>night\_flyer</author>
	<datestamp>1247061660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It wont go anywhere unless there is APPLICATION support...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It wont go anywhere unless there is APPLICATION support.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It wont go anywhere unless there is APPLICATION support...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620851</id>
	<title>It does not imply that!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1247063040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>which kind of implies that the current No.1 OS doesn't deliver in these areas!</p></div><p>No, it does not. You are doing it.</p><p>The fact that you are right that it does not deliver in these areas (my p.o.v.) does not change that.</p><p>Learn your <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical\_fallacies" title="wikipedia.org">logic</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>which kind of implies that the current No.1 OS does n't deliver in these areas ! No , it does not .
You are doing it.The fact that you are right that it does not deliver in these areas ( my p.o.v .
) does not change that.Learn your logic [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>which kind of implies that the current No.1 OS doesn't deliver in these areas!No, it does not.
You are doing it.The fact that you are right that it does not deliver in these areas (my p.o.v.
) does not change that.Learn your logic [wikipedia.org].
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620721</id>
	<title>ummm...</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1247062560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So does this mean that, to port OpenOffice, or half the FOSS apps in existence over, they will need to get rid of GTK and QT, and reimplement everything in AJAX? Holy crap, that's scary. I hope that it just marketing run amok, and that they will confirm compatibility with existing GUI applications.<br>.<br>But still, I wonder if this would promote better AJAX interoperability. I don't care who's to blame, I just want javascript that doesn't have to be developed twice; once on Firefox, and then "tweaked" to become functional on IE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So does this mean that , to port OpenOffice , or half the FOSS apps in existence over , they will need to get rid of GTK and QT , and reimplement everything in AJAX ?
Holy crap , that 's scary .
I hope that it just marketing run amok , and that they will confirm compatibility with existing GUI applications..But still , I wonder if this would promote better AJAX interoperability .
I do n't care who 's to blame , I just want javascript that does n't have to be developed twice ; once on Firefox , and then " tweaked " to become functional on IE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So does this mean that, to port OpenOffice, or half the FOSS apps in existence over, they will need to get rid of GTK and QT, and reimplement everything in AJAX?
Holy crap, that's scary.
I hope that it just marketing run amok, and that they will confirm compatibility with existing GUI applications..But still, I wonder if this would promote better AJAX interoperability.
I don't care who's to blame, I just want javascript that doesn't have to be developed twice; once on Firefox, and then "tweaked" to become functional on IE.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620653</id>
	<title>Re:Pixel-level access?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1247062320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do you need pixel-level access for?  OS X, for example, doesn't provide any trivial APIs for doing this; the closest you can come is generating an off-screen bitmap, drawing into this, and then compositing it to a window.  Even then, the window may be scaled by the window server before being composited on the screen.  If you just mean 'arbitrary drawing' then take a look at the canvas tag.</p><p>
Web applications can already read and write files using Google Gears to explicitly load and save files.  Accessing arbitrary files is not recommended for web applications, but they can store an arbitrary amount of local data with HTML 5.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you need pixel-level access for ?
OS X , for example , does n't provide any trivial APIs for doing this ; the closest you can come is generating an off-screen bitmap , drawing into this , and then compositing it to a window .
Even then , the window may be scaled by the window server before being composited on the screen .
If you just mean 'arbitrary drawing ' then take a look at the canvas tag .
Web applications can already read and write files using Google Gears to explicitly load and save files .
Accessing arbitrary files is not recommended for web applications , but they can store an arbitrary amount of local data with HTML 5 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you need pixel-level access for?
OS X, for example, doesn't provide any trivial APIs for doing this; the closest you can come is generating an off-screen bitmap, drawing into this, and then compositing it to a window.
Even then, the window may be scaled by the window server before being composited on the screen.
If you just mean 'arbitrary drawing' then take a look at the canvas tag.
Web applications can already read and write files using Google Gears to explicitly load and save files.
Accessing arbitrary files is not recommended for web applications, but they can store an arbitrary amount of local data with HTML 5.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620145</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622967</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Bertie</author>
	<datestamp>1247070420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hang on, most of Chrome was built on stuff other people did too.  Webkit and the V8 Javascript engine aren't Google's work.  So you can't really claim that Google outdid Microsoft from a standing start in a year, because Webkit's been under development since, ooh, the mid-nineties, and I don't know how long V8's been worked on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hang on , most of Chrome was built on stuff other people did too .
Webkit and the V8 Javascript engine are n't Google 's work .
So you ca n't really claim that Google outdid Microsoft from a standing start in a year , because Webkit 's been under development since , ooh , the mid-nineties , and I do n't know how long V8 's been worked on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hang on, most of Chrome was built on stuff other people did too.
Webkit and the V8 Javascript engine aren't Google's work.
So you can't really claim that Google outdid Microsoft from a standing start in a year, because Webkit's been under development since, ooh, the mid-nineties, and I don't know how long V8's been worked on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28664957</id>
	<title>Re:Why would I want this?</title>
	<author>dazjorz</author>
	<datestamp>1247326560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Taking all the obvious unix-like parts out of it really is required to get your grandmother to use it on her netbook.  Think about explaining<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/lib<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc to grandma.  It requires a complete rewrite.</p>  </div><p>What the censor is this bullcensor? Grandma never learned about C:\Program Files. Why the censor would she need to learn about<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr? Nowadays, most Linux distro's come with shiny GUI's which do most of the work for you, and everything like finding documents is made *much easier* than it is on Windows now. Especially for grandma. People need to learn the difference between "difficult" and "need to get used to it". And saying a complete rewrite is needed because grandma doesn't understand<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr is... Absurd, to say the least. Get out of your Linux From Scratch shell and start using modern distributions...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Taking all the obvious unix-like parts out of it really is required to get your grandmother to use it on her netbook .
Think about explaining /usr /lib /etc to grandma .
It requires a complete rewrite .
What the censor is this bullcensor ?
Grandma never learned about C : \ Program Files .
Why the censor would she need to learn about /usr ?
Nowadays , most Linux distro 's come with shiny GUI 's which do most of the work for you , and everything like finding documents is made * much easier * than it is on Windows now .
Especially for grandma .
People need to learn the difference between " difficult " and " need to get used to it " .
And saying a complete rewrite is needed because grandma does n't understand /usr is... Absurd , to say the least .
Get out of your Linux From Scratch shell and start using modern distributions.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Taking all the obvious unix-like parts out of it really is required to get your grandmother to use it on her netbook.
Think about explaining /usr /lib /etc to grandma.
It requires a complete rewrite.
What the censor is this bullcensor?
Grandma never learned about C:\Program Files.
Why the censor would she need to learn about /usr?
Nowadays, most Linux distro's come with shiny GUI's which do most of the work for you, and everything like finding documents is made *much easier* than it is on Windows now.
Especially for grandma.
People need to learn the difference between "difficult" and "need to get used to it".
And saying a complete rewrite is needed because grandma doesn't understand /usr is... Absurd, to say the least.
Get out of your Linux From Scratch shell and start using modern distributions...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28626963</id>
	<title>Skia</title>
	<author>pH7.0</author>
	<datestamp>1247084460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Both Chrome and Android use Skia, It's opensource already.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skia\_Graphics\_Engine" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skia\_Graphics\_Engine</a> [wikipedia.org]
<a href="http://code.google.com/p/skia/" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://code.google.com/p/skia/</a> [google.com]
"Skia is a complete 2D graphic library for drawing Text, Geometries, and Images."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Both Chrome and Android use Skia , It 's opensource already .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skia \ _Graphics \ _Engine [ wikipedia.org ] http : //code.google.com/p/skia/ [ google.com ] " Skia is a complete 2D graphic library for drawing Text , Geometries , and Images .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both Chrome and Android use Skia, It's opensource already.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skia\_Graphics\_Engine [wikipedia.org]
http://code.google.com/p/skia/ [google.com]
"Skia is a complete 2D graphic library for drawing Text, Geometries, and Images.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28630687</id>
	<title>Re:Computers are *communication* devices</title>
	<author>Optic7</author>
	<datestamp>1247060580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Excellent post. The same thing happened to radio (the ultimate predominant use of the technology not being envisioned at its inception). They didn't really think of broadcasting to the general masses until a long time after it was invented - it was originally thought of as a two-way point-to-point communications medium.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Excellent post .
The same thing happened to radio ( the ultimate predominant use of the technology not being envisioned at its inception ) .
They did n't really think of broadcasting to the general masses until a long time after it was invented - it was originally thought of as a two-way point-to-point communications medium .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excellent post.
The same thing happened to radio (the ultimate predominant use of the technology not being envisioned at its inception).
They didn't really think of broadcasting to the general masses until a long time after it was invented - it was originally thought of as a two-way point-to-point communications medium.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28624051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625545</id>
	<title>Re:Fast web OS needed!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247079540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On a side note: I can't wait until a new OS finally achieves the startup times of the good old trusy Commodore 64.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div><p>You mean, 1 second to the desktop/command prompt but 5-10 minutes to any usable application?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On a side note : I ca n't wait until a new OS finally achieves the startup times of the good old trusy Commodore 64. : - ) You mean , 1 second to the desktop/command prompt but 5-10 minutes to any usable application ?
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On a side note: I can't wait until a new OS finally achieves the startup times of the good old trusy Commodore 64. :-)You mean, 1 second to the desktop/command prompt but 5-10 minutes to any usable application?
:-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28627543</id>
	<title>SDK</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247043660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hope they'll release the SDK soon!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hope they 'll release the SDK soon !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hope they'll release the SDK soon!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621079</id>
	<title>Mixed Feelings</title>
	<author>thisnamestoolong</author>
	<datestamp>1247063880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I for one am happy on one hand that GNU/Linux will be getting a little bit of mainstream exposure, but I think it is really dumb to do it like this, ie, making everything so damned proprietary. You always need the element of choice in Linux, that is one of its main draws, but on the other hand, a degree of standardization is absolutely necessary for widespread adoption. I think Google would do very well by adopting some of the standards already out there rather than confusing the field even more with a new window manager. Why not just use Gnome for the Window manager? If we are going to bring new users in, we need to have a degree of standardization.<br> <br>

Oh, and I would like to preemptively strike down the elitist "let the n00bs use Windows" arguments, I would like to make a case for why we would all benefit from a greater market share. <br> <br>

The first is obvious -- wider adoption means greater hardware and software support. I am forced to keep a Windows install on my desktop to run ProTools. It sucks. I would much rather run ProTools on a machine that can recognize more than 3 GB RAM, and that does not need an anti-virus program. If Linux had a 30\% market share (or Hell, even 10\%) Digi would be forced to create a Linux version of ProTools. The same with all of the hardware issues we all have, many more devs would be forced to create dedicated Linux drivers. The only objection I can see from this are those who hold stock in Tylenol.<br> <br>

Another thing that needs to be considered is that n00bs are GREAT at crashing systems and finding bugs. Anyone who doesn't know this clearly has never worked in IT before. If we adopted a (opt-in, of course -- we don't want ) error reporting system to automatically upload log files from crashes, the community would be able to ferret out all sorts of issues. This is not even to mention the "n00bs" who will go on to become Linux gurus, many of whom probably never realized that they were as interested in computers. I know that before I converted to Linux, my computer was simply another tool. If it weren't for the extremely user-friendly nature of Ubuntu, I would have never gotten into it. I am certainly not a guru yet, but I am doing everything I can to absorb as much information as I can and do everything I am capable of to help the community.<br> <br>

Finally, simply getting the idea into the heads of the masses that open-source works would be a monstrously good thing. It would create pressure on all aspects of the tech world (and beyond), to adopt open policies. Devs would be pressured to create open source drivers (I'm looking at you ATI and NVidia), and even paid software would become increasingly open source as customers began demanding it.<br> <br>

Sorry for the long rambling post, but the main point here is that I think Google is frakking up big time in some of the specifics of their implementation here, but I really like that they are getting GNU/Linux and OSS out into the mainstream. Only good things can come of that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I for one am happy on one hand that GNU/Linux will be getting a little bit of mainstream exposure , but I think it is really dumb to do it like this , ie , making everything so damned proprietary .
You always need the element of choice in Linux , that is one of its main draws , but on the other hand , a degree of standardization is absolutely necessary for widespread adoption .
I think Google would do very well by adopting some of the standards already out there rather than confusing the field even more with a new window manager .
Why not just use Gnome for the Window manager ?
If we are going to bring new users in , we need to have a degree of standardization .
Oh , and I would like to preemptively strike down the elitist " let the n00bs use Windows " arguments , I would like to make a case for why we would all benefit from a greater market share .
The first is obvious -- wider adoption means greater hardware and software support .
I am forced to keep a Windows install on my desktop to run ProTools .
It sucks .
I would much rather run ProTools on a machine that can recognize more than 3 GB RAM , and that does not need an anti-virus program .
If Linux had a 30 \ % market share ( or Hell , even 10 \ % ) Digi would be forced to create a Linux version of ProTools .
The same with all of the hardware issues we all have , many more devs would be forced to create dedicated Linux drivers .
The only objection I can see from this are those who hold stock in Tylenol .
Another thing that needs to be considered is that n00bs are GREAT at crashing systems and finding bugs .
Anyone who does n't know this clearly has never worked in IT before .
If we adopted a ( opt-in , of course -- we do n't want ) error reporting system to automatically upload log files from crashes , the community would be able to ferret out all sorts of issues .
This is not even to mention the " n00bs " who will go on to become Linux gurus , many of whom probably never realized that they were as interested in computers .
I know that before I converted to Linux , my computer was simply another tool .
If it were n't for the extremely user-friendly nature of Ubuntu , I would have never gotten into it .
I am certainly not a guru yet , but I am doing everything I can to absorb as much information as I can and do everything I am capable of to help the community .
Finally , simply getting the idea into the heads of the masses that open-source works would be a monstrously good thing .
It would create pressure on all aspects of the tech world ( and beyond ) , to adopt open policies .
Devs would be pressured to create open source drivers ( I 'm looking at you ATI and NVidia ) , and even paid software would become increasingly open source as customers began demanding it .
Sorry for the long rambling post , but the main point here is that I think Google is frakking up big time in some of the specifics of their implementation here , but I really like that they are getting GNU/Linux and OSS out into the mainstream .
Only good things can come of that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I for one am happy on one hand that GNU/Linux will be getting a little bit of mainstream exposure, but I think it is really dumb to do it like this, ie, making everything so damned proprietary.
You always need the element of choice in Linux, that is one of its main draws, but on the other hand, a degree of standardization is absolutely necessary for widespread adoption.
I think Google would do very well by adopting some of the standards already out there rather than confusing the field even more with a new window manager.
Why not just use Gnome for the Window manager?
If we are going to bring new users in, we need to have a degree of standardization.
Oh, and I would like to preemptively strike down the elitist "let the n00bs use Windows" arguments, I would like to make a case for why we would all benefit from a greater market share.
The first is obvious -- wider adoption means greater hardware and software support.
I am forced to keep a Windows install on my desktop to run ProTools.
It sucks.
I would much rather run ProTools on a machine that can recognize more than 3 GB RAM, and that does not need an anti-virus program.
If Linux had a 30\% market share (or Hell, even 10\%) Digi would be forced to create a Linux version of ProTools.
The same with all of the hardware issues we all have, many more devs would be forced to create dedicated Linux drivers.
The only objection I can see from this are those who hold stock in Tylenol.
Another thing that needs to be considered is that n00bs are GREAT at crashing systems and finding bugs.
Anyone who doesn't know this clearly has never worked in IT before.
If we adopted a (opt-in, of course -- we don't want ) error reporting system to automatically upload log files from crashes, the community would be able to ferret out all sorts of issues.
This is not even to mention the "n00bs" who will go on to become Linux gurus, many of whom probably never realized that they were as interested in computers.
I know that before I converted to Linux, my computer was simply another tool.
If it weren't for the extremely user-friendly nature of Ubuntu, I would have never gotten into it.
I am certainly not a guru yet, but I am doing everything I can to absorb as much information as I can and do everything I am capable of to help the community.
Finally, simply getting the idea into the heads of the masses that open-source works would be a monstrously good thing.
It would create pressure on all aspects of the tech world (and beyond), to adopt open policies.
Devs would be pressured to create open source drivers (I'm looking at you ATI and NVidia), and even paid software would become increasingly open source as customers began demanding it.
Sorry for the long rambling post, but the main point here is that I think Google is frakking up big time in some of the specifics of their implementation here, but I really like that they are getting GNU/Linux and OSS out into the mainstream.
Only good things can come of that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621977</id>
	<title>Crunchpad, anyone?</title>
	<author>iperkins</author>
	<datestamp>1247067120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This sounds like a perfect fit for the <a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/07/04/1439239/CrunchPad-Will-Be-a-Dead-Simple-Web-Tablet" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">Crunchpad</a> [slashdot.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds like a perfect fit for the Crunchpad [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds like a perfect fit for the Crunchpad [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620189</id>
	<title>Re:The web is NOT the OS</title>
	<author>VJ42</author>
	<datestamp>1247060280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I don't like the Chrome browser and I don't need an OS named Chrome that is actually Linux with a lame web browser bolted on as the front end.</p></div><p>So then don't use it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't like the Chrome browser and I do n't need an OS named Chrome that is actually Linux with a lame web browser bolted on as the front end.So then do n't use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I don't like the Chrome browser and I don't need an OS named Chrome that is actually Linux with a lame web browser bolted on as the front end.So then don't use it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620345</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Mojo01010011</author>
	<datestamp>1247061000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed, the summary seems overly excited about an unproven product...

How long will the Chrome OS be in beta? 4 years? 5 years?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed , the summary seems overly excited about an unproven product.. . How long will the Chrome OS be in beta ?
4 years ?
5 years ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed, the summary seems overly excited about an unproven product...

How long will the Chrome OS be in beta?
4 years?
5 years?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623669</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247073000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think Windows 7 is fast, safe, and simple to use.</p></div><p>Ha ha ha ha ha haaaaa! Oh, man. Mark parent up, +5 funny. I love this guy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Windows 7 is fast , safe , and simple to use.Ha ha ha ha ha haaaaa !
Oh , man .
Mark parent up , + 5 funny .
I love this guy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Windows 7 is fast, safe, and simple to use.Ha ha ha ha ha haaaaa!
Oh, man.
Mark parent up, +5 funny.
I love this guy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620123</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28629011</id>
	<title>Re:Does this mean</title>
	<author>RazorSharp</author>
	<datestamp>1247050680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think so. People believe in Google, most who have used the web have also used some sort of Google product. It's not like Red Hat or Ubuntu or something that Joe Shmoe will disregard because he's never heard of it. And it will be CHEAP (which probably means on sale at Wal-Mart).</p><p>I bet they'll profit by licensing it to hardware vendors. Basically the license will say that you have to pay up if you sell hardware but for personal use you can download for free.</p><p>I hate to be a clich&#195;&#169; Microsoft-basher but this really put a smile on my face, I've been waiting for Google to do this for years. It's companies like Microsoft that fuel all my socialist sentiments but fortunately their competitors - Google, Apple, Nintendo, and IBM (yeah, I said it) - they remind me of the merits of capitalism. Non-evil cunning can win<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D The sad part is that Google is the only one of those companies I mentioned which hasn't been corrupted by power. The other three did the right thing because their backs were against the wall.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think so .
People believe in Google , most who have used the web have also used some sort of Google product .
It 's not like Red Hat or Ubuntu or something that Joe Shmoe will disregard because he 's never heard of it .
And it will be CHEAP ( which probably means on sale at Wal-Mart ) .I bet they 'll profit by licensing it to hardware vendors .
Basically the license will say that you have to pay up if you sell hardware but for personal use you can download for free.I hate to be a clich     Microsoft-basher but this really put a smile on my face , I 've been waiting for Google to do this for years .
It 's companies like Microsoft that fuel all my socialist sentiments but fortunately their competitors - Google , Apple , Nintendo , and IBM ( yeah , I said it ) - they remind me of the merits of capitalism .
Non-evil cunning can win : D The sad part is that Google is the only one of those companies I mentioned which has n't been corrupted by power .
The other three did the right thing because their backs were against the wall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think so.
People believe in Google, most who have used the web have also used some sort of Google product.
It's not like Red Hat or Ubuntu or something that Joe Shmoe will disregard because he's never heard of it.
And it will be CHEAP (which probably means on sale at Wal-Mart).I bet they'll profit by licensing it to hardware vendors.
Basically the license will say that you have to pay up if you sell hardware but for personal use you can download for free.I hate to be a clichÃ© Microsoft-basher but this really put a smile on my face, I've been waiting for Google to do this for years.
It's companies like Microsoft that fuel all my socialist sentiments but fortunately their competitors - Google, Apple, Nintendo, and IBM (yeah, I said it) - they remind me of the merits of capitalism.
Non-evil cunning can win :D The sad part is that Google is the only one of those companies I mentioned which hasn't been corrupted by power.
The other three did the right thing because their backs were against the wall.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28624421</id>
	<title>Bad naming scheme</title>
	<author>JYD</author>
	<datestamp>1247075700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can't Google come up with a better that differentiate their products, like "Cyborg OS" or "Goobuntu"?  Because now, whenever a conversation involving Chrome comes up, we would have to ask "the OS, the browser, or Element 24?"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't Google come up with a better that differentiate their products , like " Cyborg OS " or " Goobuntu " ?
Because now , whenever a conversation involving Chrome comes up , we would have to ask " the OS , the browser , or Element 24 ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't Google come up with a better that differentiate their products, like "Cyborg OS" or "Goobuntu"?
Because now, whenever a conversation involving Chrome comes up, we would have to ask "the OS, the browser, or Element 24?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28631733</id>
	<title>Re:The one thing that could derail this would be..</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1247068380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Mac OS for PCs. Wouldn't u love that?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

Mac OS (X I'm assuming, however the parent may mean system 8) follows almost no logic and sacrifices functionality and security for looks. Why would anyone in their right mind want that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mac OS for PCs .
Would n't u love that ?
Mac OS ( X I 'm assuming , however the parent may mean system 8 ) follows almost no logic and sacrifices functionality and security for looks .
Why would anyone in their right mind want that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mac OS for PCs.
Wouldn't u love that?
Mac OS (X I'm assuming, however the parent may mean system 8) follows almost no logic and sacrifices functionality and security for looks.
Why would anyone in their right mind want that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28635977</id>
	<title>Photoshop or heavier wieght programs?</title>
	<author>cdpage</author>
	<datestamp>1247152140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>so what about programs like photoshop, can i still edit my photos?<br>Or video editing, can i still run some 'lightweight' video editing software for my home movies?</htmltext>
<tokenext>so what about programs like photoshop , can i still edit my photos ? Or video editing , can i still run some 'lightweight ' video editing software for my home movies ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so what about programs like photoshop, can i still edit my photos?Or video editing, can i still run some 'lightweight' video editing software for my home movies?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039</id>
	<title>The web is NOT the OS</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1247059560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The web is not the OS. The web is...the web. I do NOT want everything to be a goddamn web app. Web apps work very well for certain applications, and Google has shown that they can push the limits with dynamic content, but that does not mean the web application is an appropriate model for every damned application. I don't like the Chrome browser and I don't need an OS named Chrome that is actually Linux with a lame web browser bolted on as the front end. Google does search very well, but I've hated most of their other stuff. (Google Earth is one exception) I expect no different from this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The web is not the OS .
The web is...the web .
I do NOT want everything to be a goddamn web app .
Web apps work very well for certain applications , and Google has shown that they can push the limits with dynamic content , but that does not mean the web application is an appropriate model for every damned application .
I do n't like the Chrome browser and I do n't need an OS named Chrome that is actually Linux with a lame web browser bolted on as the front end .
Google does search very well , but I 've hated most of their other stuff .
( Google Earth is one exception ) I expect no different from this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The web is not the OS.
The web is...the web.
I do NOT want everything to be a goddamn web app.
Web apps work very well for certain applications, and Google has shown that they can push the limits with dynamic content, but that does not mean the web application is an appropriate model for every damned application.
I don't like the Chrome browser and I don't need an OS named Chrome that is actually Linux with a lame web browser bolted on as the front end.
Google does search very well, but I've hated most of their other stuff.
(Google Earth is one exception) I expect no different from this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620459</id>
	<title>All the Google Technologies rolled into one</title>
	<author>plazman30</author>
	<datestamp>1247061540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure this OS will have Chrome, and for offline use, Google Gears will be part of the OS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure this OS will have Chrome , and for offline use , Google Gears will be part of the OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure this OS will have Chrome, and for offline use, Google Gears will be part of the OS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622267</id>
	<title>Re:Fear</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247068080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This means that Google would be shooting themselves in the foot by doing something blatantly evil with it.</p></div><p>The evil side of Google is already there and completely accepted by his customers. They already have emails, documents, search preferences and a lot of other stuff on their servers. They will have soon medical histories and other sensible data. What they're missing is the wide usage due to the fact that Chrome and Apps are not the "de facto" standard. So, what's the last ring of the chain? The OS, of course.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This means that Google would be shooting themselves in the foot by doing something blatantly evil with it.The evil side of Google is already there and completely accepted by his customers .
They already have emails , documents , search preferences and a lot of other stuff on their servers .
They will have soon medical histories and other sensible data .
What they 're missing is the wide usage due to the fact that Chrome and Apps are not the " de facto " standard .
So , what 's the last ring of the chain ?
The OS , of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This means that Google would be shooting themselves in the foot by doing something blatantly evil with it.The evil side of Google is already there and completely accepted by his customers.
They already have emails, documents, search preferences and a lot of other stuff on their servers.
They will have soon medical histories and other sensible data.
What they're missing is the wide usage due to the fact that Chrome and Apps are not the "de facto" standard.
So, what's the last ring of the chain?
The OS, of course.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620677</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28633613</id>
	<title>E17 is the answer?</title>
	<author>quantic\_oscillation7</author>
	<datestamp>1247133600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>E17 will be out, it's 1.0 version in the end of 2009, would it be the next great windowing system?

it's powerful, beautiful, fast and light.

100Mhz cpu 64mb ram that's all what you need!</htmltext>
<tokenext>E17 will be out , it 's 1.0 version in the end of 2009 , would it be the next great windowing system ?
it 's powerful , beautiful , fast and light .
100Mhz cpu 64mb ram that 's all what you need !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>E17 will be out, it's 1.0 version in the end of 2009, would it be the next great windowing system?
it's powerful, beautiful, fast and light.
100Mhz cpu 64mb ram that's all what you need!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623235</id>
	<title>The Witch is Dead!</title>
	<author>kcghost</author>
	<datestamp>1247071440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hooray for MS will die in a fire!

I think this is the most awesome news ever.
Google + Linux + Anti-Microsoft?

I think the only thing that could improve this news is a further announcement that the default wallpaper for the new OS will include a kitty.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hooray for MS will die in a fire !
I think this is the most awesome news ever .
Google + Linux + Anti-Microsoft ?
I think the only thing that could improve this news is a further announcement that the default wallpaper for the new OS will include a kitty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hooray for MS will die in a fire!
I think this is the most awesome news ever.
Google + Linux + Anti-Microsoft?
I think the only thing that could improve this news is a further announcement that the default wallpaper for the new OS will include a kitty.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622523</id>
	<title>Re:Automatically or automagically?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247068980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mid-2010, perhaps?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mid-2010 , perhaps ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mid-2010, perhaps?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622849</id>
	<title>Re:The web is NOT the OS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247070060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They have Photoshop in a web browser already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They have Photoshop in a web browser already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have Photoshop in a web browser already.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623627</id>
	<title>Re:The web is NOT the OS</title>
	<author>ftobin</author>
	<datestamp>1247072880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's important to remember that one big advantage that web applications have over traditional desktop applications is that they connect and integrate with the entire network of the web better.  Traditional applications tend to behave a lot like flash applications do: they work well on their own, but tend to be closed in terms of integration with their environment.  Going forward, integrating with all other applications and information available on the internet will continue to be a key driving force.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's important to remember that one big advantage that web applications have over traditional desktop applications is that they connect and integrate with the entire network of the web better .
Traditional applications tend to behave a lot like flash applications do : they work well on their own , but tend to be closed in terms of integration with their environment .
Going forward , integrating with all other applications and information available on the internet will continue to be a key driving force .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's important to remember that one big advantage that web applications have over traditional desktop applications is that they connect and integrate with the entire network of the web better.
Traditional applications tend to behave a lot like flash applications do: they work well on their own, but tend to be closed in terms of integration with their environment.
Going forward, integrating with all other applications and information available on the internet will continue to be a key driving force.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621105</id>
	<title>Does this mean</title>
	<author>Moabz</author>
	<datestamp>1247063940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>2010 is finally the year of the linux desktop ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>2010 is finally the year of the linux desktop ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2010 is finally the year of the linux desktop ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28632367</id>
	<title>Re:Does this mean</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247073960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, it's the year of the Linux Netbook.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it 's the year of the Linux Netbook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it's the year of the Linux Netbook.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28642061</id>
	<title>What will the Killer App Be?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247133180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What will the killer app be that will cause this to disrupt the desktop OS lead by Microsoft? If there is none, then it will be like Linux in the desktop market (something of interest and for hobbyists).</p><p>I see a bigger impact in the embedded, kiosk-type, and netpc market. Considering the purchases that Intel has also made into this realm it will be interesting to see if both will buddy up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What will the killer app be that will cause this to disrupt the desktop OS lead by Microsoft ?
If there is none , then it will be like Linux in the desktop market ( something of interest and for hobbyists ) .I see a bigger impact in the embedded , kiosk-type , and netpc market .
Considering the purchases that Intel has also made into this realm it will be interesting to see if both will buddy up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What will the killer app be that will cause this to disrupt the desktop OS lead by Microsoft?
If there is none, then it will be like Linux in the desktop market (something of interest and for hobbyists).I see a bigger impact in the embedded, kiosk-type, and netpc market.
Considering the purchases that Intel has also made into this realm it will be interesting to see if both will buddy up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28628009</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>bigngamer92</author>
	<datestamp>1247046060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nobody expects the Google beta.  Since most of them died yesterday.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody expects the Google beta .
Since most of them died yesterday .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody expects the Google beta.
Since most of them died yesterday.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621059</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28631463</id>
	<title>Re:This recession is a good time to strike</title>
	<author>w0mprat</author>
	<datestamp>1247066640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's your point? All they are really developing is a streamlined user land API, the kernel space is from Linux, the browser is existing stable code. All the difficult stuff that takes hundreds of millions of dollars is already done. It gets cheekier: the OSS community is going to do the heavy lifting ^H^H^H^H help out developing the thing, add additional features, port all the utils nerds want/expect, and third parties will write a metric assload of apps for it.
<br> <br>
What we're looking at is a Tesla Motors momment - <br> <br>
1) Take a existing volume production rolling chassis (lotus elise) <br>
2) Give it batteries in and a motor. <br>
3) ????<br>
4) Profit / Take a steaming dump all over automakers 100x larger than you.<br>
<br>A Google OS momment:<br>
1) Use linux kernel + your custom user space that finally GIFR (Gets It F*g Right) + existing browser.<br>
2) (There is no "????")<br>
2) Profit / Deliver a crushing blow to the gonads of your nemesis (+ nice new nerd toy for the FOSS lads)<br>
<br>
Infact, Google has little else to do -compared with an entire OS from scratch- but polish it and market it.
<br> <br>
Microsoft: Google is not as stupid as you look.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's your point ?
All they are really developing is a streamlined user land API , the kernel space is from Linux , the browser is existing stable code .
All the difficult stuff that takes hundreds of millions of dollars is already done .
It gets cheekier : the OSS community is going to do the heavy lifting ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H help out developing the thing , add additional features , port all the utils nerds want/expect , and third parties will write a metric assload of apps for it .
What we 're looking at is a Tesla Motors momment - 1 ) Take a existing volume production rolling chassis ( lotus elise ) 2 ) Give it batteries in and a motor .
3 ) ? ? ? ?
4 ) Profit / Take a steaming dump all over automakers 100x larger than you .
A Google OS momment : 1 ) Use linux kernel + your custom user space that finally GIFR ( Gets It F * g Right ) + existing browser .
2 ) ( There is no " ? ? ? ?
" ) 2 ) Profit / Deliver a crushing blow to the gonads of your nemesis ( + nice new nerd toy for the FOSS lads ) Infact , Google has little else to do -compared with an entire OS from scratch- but polish it and market it .
Microsoft : Google is not as stupid as you look .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's your point?
All they are really developing is a streamlined user land API, the kernel space is from Linux, the browser is existing stable code.
All the difficult stuff that takes hundreds of millions of dollars is already done.
It gets cheekier: the OSS community is going to do the heavy lifting ^H^H^H^H help out developing the thing, add additional features, port all the utils nerds want/expect, and third parties will write a metric assload of apps for it.
What we're looking at is a Tesla Motors momment -  
1) Take a existing volume production rolling chassis (lotus elise) 
2) Give it batteries in and a motor.
3) ????
4) Profit / Take a steaming dump all over automakers 100x larger than you.
A Google OS momment:
1) Use linux kernel + your custom user space that finally GIFR (Gets It F*g Right) + existing browser.
2) (There is no "????
")
2) Profit / Deliver a crushing blow to the gonads of your nemesis (+ nice new nerd toy for the FOSS lads)

Infact, Google has little else to do -compared with an entire OS from scratch- but polish it and market it.
Microsoft: Google is not as stupid as you look.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622655</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620907</id>
	<title>Re:The web is NOT the OS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247063160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Worse still, you are trading freedom for convenience in using these applications.</p><p>All other things being equal, it is well known that free software is better than closed-source software because of the "free as in speech" aspect. These web applications are worse than that; they are not only closed-source, they are running on someone else's machine! We should all be very cautious about using them, because we have no control over them or the network that links us to them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Worse still , you are trading freedom for convenience in using these applications.All other things being equal , it is well known that free software is better than closed-source software because of the " free as in speech " aspect .
These web applications are worse than that ; they are not only closed-source , they are running on someone else 's machine !
We should all be very cautious about using them , because we have no control over them or the network that links us to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Worse still, you are trading freedom for convenience in using these applications.All other things being equal, it is well known that free software is better than closed-source software because of the "free as in speech" aspect.
These web applications are worse than that; they are not only closed-source, they are running on someone else's machine!
We should all be very cautious about using them, because we have no control over them or the network that links us to them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622937</id>
	<title>Hardware Support</title>
	<author>kazar636</author>
	<datestamp>1247070300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm hoping that a linux distro (which is what this basically is) with google behind it will encourage hardware manufacturers to support it, rather than requiring all sorts of hellish tricks to get my bloody headphone socket working!  Especially if mainstream sales points start selling PCs with the Google Chrome OS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm hoping that a linux distro ( which is what this basically is ) with google behind it will encourage hardware manufacturers to support it , rather than requiring all sorts of hellish tricks to get my bloody headphone socket working !
Especially if mainstream sales points start selling PCs with the Google Chrome OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm hoping that a linux distro (which is what this basically is) with google behind it will encourage hardware manufacturers to support it, rather than requiring all sorts of hellish tricks to get my bloody headphone socket working!
Especially if mainstream sales points start selling PCs with the Google Chrome OS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620535</id>
	<title>All Your Data Belong To Us!</title>
	<author>Shinatosh</author>
	<datestamp>1247061900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>-Will the Chrome OS licensed with the standard Google license, that was used "by mistake" in the Chrome browser first?<br>-Will the Chrome OS give me targeted ads on the desktop/taskbar/whatever based on my OS usage?<br>-Can one trust his/her computer and data to an OS/Web application system that was made by a company, primarily living off collecting/categorizing data?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>-Will the Chrome OS licensed with the standard Google license , that was used " by mistake " in the Chrome browser first ? -Will the Chrome OS give me targeted ads on the desktop/taskbar/whatever based on my OS usage ? -Can one trust his/her computer and data to an OS/Web application system that was made by a company , primarily living off collecting/categorizing data ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>-Will the Chrome OS licensed with the standard Google license, that was used "by mistake" in the Chrome browser first?-Will the Chrome OS give me targeted ads on the desktop/taskbar/whatever based on my OS usage?-Can one trust his/her computer and data to an OS/Web application system that was made by a company, primarily living off collecting/categorizing data?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28629731</id>
	<title>Re:Chrome is the new Emacs?</title>
	<author>ocularDeathRay</author>
	<datestamp>1247055000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>that reminds me, I need to get to work on my viOS. everything you ever do you will have to hit esc esc : and then a series of cryptic one letter commands.
<br> <br>
for example esc esc : psd! would post this message to slashdot with no preview</htmltext>
<tokenext>that reminds me , I need to get to work on my viOS .
everything you ever do you will have to hit esc esc : and then a series of cryptic one letter commands .
for example esc esc : psd !
would post this message to slashdot with no preview</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that reminds me, I need to get to work on my viOS.
everything you ever do you will have to hit esc esc : and then a series of cryptic one letter commands.
for example esc esc : psd!
would post this message to slashdot with no preview</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28624975</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247077560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FOSS, baby, FOSS. If it ain't FOSS it can't be boss. Get with the new paradigm, and make it rhyme. If you pronounced it par-ah-didge-m, you ain't smart, but you got rhythm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FOSS , baby , FOSS .
If it ai n't FOSS it ca n't be boss .
Get with the new paradigm , and make it rhyme .
If you pronounced it par-ah-didge-m , you ai n't smart , but you got rhythm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FOSS, baby, FOSS.
If it ain't FOSS it can't be boss.
Get with the new paradigm, and make it rhyme.
If you pronounced it par-ah-didge-m, you ain't smart, but you got rhythm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620123</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625683</id>
	<title>Re:Automatically or automagically?</title>
	<author>rliden</author>
	<datestamp>1247080020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless something has changed recently Google has yet to release any of their "desktop" apps as native Linux software.  If I understand it right they all run under a specially compiled WINE. So when you run Picasa or Google Earth they sit on top of that WINE instance.  I always hated how they integrated with the file system and the rest of the OS.  It just felt clunky to me.  I haven't used Linux as my primary OS in a couple years now so maybe that has all changed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless something has changed recently Google has yet to release any of their " desktop " apps as native Linux software .
If I understand it right they all run under a specially compiled WINE .
So when you run Picasa or Google Earth they sit on top of that WINE instance .
I always hated how they integrated with the file system and the rest of the OS .
It just felt clunky to me .
I have n't used Linux as my primary OS in a couple years now so maybe that has all changed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless something has changed recently Google has yet to release any of their "desktop" apps as native Linux software.
If I understand it right they all run under a specially compiled WINE.
So when you run Picasa or Google Earth they sit on top of that WINE instance.
I always hated how they integrated with the file system and the rest of the OS.
It just felt clunky to me.
I haven't used Linux as my primary OS in a couple years now so maybe that has all changed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28626035</id>
	<title>Online only?</title>
	<author>holiggan</author>
	<datestamp>1247081220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe I'm being div, but won't this imply that the machine should be online 100\% of the time? What if I'm in the middle of nowere, can't I play a quick game of gnu-mines or something?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe I 'm being div , but wo n't this imply that the machine should be online 100 \ % of the time ?
What if I 'm in the middle of nowere , ca n't I play a quick game of gnu-mines or something ?
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe I'm being div, but won't this imply that the machine should be online 100\% of the time?
What if I'm in the middle of nowere, can't I play a quick game of gnu-mines or something?
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620797</id>
	<title>Innovation??</title>
	<author>marjancek</author>
	<datestamp>1247062860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about SplashTop, Presto, and all the instant-on Linuxes that provide much more than just a browser in just 3 secs?
And that's with a real web browser *with* extensions, and, well, whatever you want to install on it.

<a href="http://tech.xlab.si/?p=717" title="tech.xlab.si" rel="nofollow">http://tech.xlab.si/?p=717</a> [tech.xlab.si]</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about SplashTop , Presto , and all the instant-on Linuxes that provide much more than just a browser in just 3 secs ?
And that 's with a real web browser * with * extensions , and , well , whatever you want to install on it .
http : //tech.xlab.si/ ? p = 717 [ tech.xlab.si ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about SplashTop, Presto, and all the instant-on Linuxes that provide much more than just a browser in just 3 secs?
And that's with a real web browser *with* extensions, and, well, whatever you want to install on it.
http://tech.xlab.si/?p=717 [tech.xlab.si]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621599</id>
	<title>Yea, but can I play WoW on it?</title>
	<author>axl917</author>
	<datestamp>1247065740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>An important feature, y'know.</htmltext>
<tokenext>An important feature , y'know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An important feature, y'know.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621087</id>
	<title>Re:The one thing that could derail this would be..</title>
	<author>ZmeiGorynych</author>
	<datestamp>1247063880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um. No. Why would I?</p><p>My exposure to ipod and itunes taught me to avoid apple in the future, can't see what the fuss is about - mediocre UI (not terrible; just mediocre) and automatic behaviors that I hate but can't turn off (whenever I plugged in my ipod to recharge, on-the-go playlist got reset if itunes was present, for example). That was the old ipod to be sure (gen 5 I think), but rather than buying the touch I'll wait for the competition to deliver a comparable device that obeys \_me\_ (give Android another half a year or so).</p><p>Writing this from Ubuntu - set this laptop (Samsung Q35) up as a dual-boot with XP Pro, but still haven't faced up to the hassle of making all the hardware work on Windows (bloody drivers, won't even recognize ethernet), while Ubuntu just works. Who wants OSX?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um .
No. Why would I ? My exposure to ipod and itunes taught me to avoid apple in the future , ca n't see what the fuss is about - mediocre UI ( not terrible ; just mediocre ) and automatic behaviors that I hate but ca n't turn off ( whenever I plugged in my ipod to recharge , on-the-go playlist got reset if itunes was present , for example ) .
That was the old ipod to be sure ( gen 5 I think ) , but rather than buying the touch I 'll wait for the competition to deliver a comparable device that obeys \ _me \ _ ( give Android another half a year or so ) .Writing this from Ubuntu - set this laptop ( Samsung Q35 ) up as a dual-boot with XP Pro , but still have n't faced up to the hassle of making all the hardware work on Windows ( bloody drivers , wo n't even recognize ethernet ) , while Ubuntu just works .
Who wants OSX ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um.
No. Why would I?My exposure to ipod and itunes taught me to avoid apple in the future, can't see what the fuss is about - mediocre UI (not terrible; just mediocre) and automatic behaviors that I hate but can't turn off (whenever I plugged in my ipod to recharge, on-the-go playlist got reset if itunes was present, for example).
That was the old ipod to be sure (gen 5 I think), but rather than buying the touch I'll wait for the competition to deliver a comparable device that obeys \_me\_ (give Android another half a year or so).Writing this from Ubuntu - set this laptop (Samsung Q35) up as a dual-boot with XP Pro, but still haven't faced up to the hassle of making all the hardware work on Windows (bloody drivers, won't even recognize ethernet), while Ubuntu just works.
Who wants OSX?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623251</id>
	<title>What about the EU?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247071500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will they force the OS to un-integrate the browser from the OS, or ship with an (E) edition without a browser or give a popup that allows alternative browsers to install? I sure hope so to make things fair all around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will they force the OS to un-integrate the browser from the OS , or ship with an ( E ) edition without a browser or give a popup that allows alternative browsers to install ?
I sure hope so to make things fair all around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will they force the OS to un-integrate the browser from the OS, or ship with an (E) edition without a browser or give a popup that allows alternative browsers to install?
I sure hope so to make things fair all around.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28639885</id>
	<title>Re:Does this mean</title>
	<author>sys.stdout.write</author>
	<datestamp>1247167440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>God damnit, you made me chortle coffee all over myself at work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>God damnit , you made me chortle coffee all over myself at work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God damnit, you made me chortle coffee all over myself at work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620757</id>
	<title>You don't.</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1247062680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do you need pixel level access? Just ensure your scripts can deal with a large enough screen real stat and of you go.</p><p>As for filesystem, you are joking, right? Your data will not be in your local computer, or it will be synched by an application outside your browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do you need pixel level access ?
Just ensure your scripts can deal with a large enough screen real stat and of you go.As for filesystem , you are joking , right ?
Your data will not be in your local computer , or it will be synched by an application outside your browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do you need pixel level access?
Just ensure your scripts can deal with a large enough screen real stat and of you go.As for filesystem, you are joking, right?
Your data will not be in your local computer, or it will be synched by an application outside your browser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620145</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622241</id>
	<title>Speed, Simplicity, and Security</title>
	<author>InsertCleverUsername</author>
	<datestamp>1247068020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>its main selling points are speed, simplicity and security</p></div><p>Oh...  I'm sure if you push the envelope and try to do all the things you can on your Windows box, you can negate all these advantages.  Users are much more resourceful than we imagine.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>its main selling points are speed , simplicity and securityOh... I 'm sure if you push the envelope and try to do all the things you can on your Windows box , you can negate all these advantages .
Users are much more resourceful than we imagine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>its main selling points are speed, simplicity and securityOh...  I'm sure if you push the envelope and try to do all the things you can on your Windows box, you can negate all these advantages.
Users are much more resourceful than we imagine.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625857</id>
	<title>Re:Web-based admin night be nice</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1247080680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, if the applications use web based technology, then wouldn't it make sense to include a php interpreter in there somewhere?<br>.<br>Or maybe they'll come out with Google Registry ( <a href="http://google.com/registry" title="google.com">http://google.com/registry</a> [google.com] ), which will allow you to flub up your system or add spyware from anywhere one earth. It's truly innovative.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , if the applications use web based technology , then would n't it make sense to include a php interpreter in there somewhere ? .Or maybe they 'll come out with Google Registry ( http : //google.com/registry [ google.com ] ) , which will allow you to flub up your system or add spyware from anywhere one earth .
It 's truly innovative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, if the applications use web based technology, then wouldn't it make sense to include a php interpreter in there somewhere?.Or maybe they'll come out with Google Registry ( http://google.com/registry [google.com] ), which will allow you to flub up your system or add spyware from anywhere one earth.
It's truly innovative.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623481</id>
	<title>Re:This recession is a good time to strike</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247072340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your definition of losing is an interesting one.  It probably stems from the same mental defect that causes people to still chuckle at Ballmer-throwing-chairs jokes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your definition of losing is an interesting one .
It probably stems from the same mental defect that causes people to still chuckle at Ballmer-throwing-chairs jokes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your definition of losing is an interesting one.
It probably stems from the same mental defect that causes people to still chuckle at Ballmer-throwing-chairs jokes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620819</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28630957</id>
	<title>Re:Fear</title>
	<author>Hadlock</author>
	<datestamp>1247062500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So comment those parts out and recompile. It's going to be open source you big baby.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So comment those parts out and recompile .
It 's going to be open source you big baby .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So comment those parts out and recompile.
It's going to be open source you big baby.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619981</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621155</id>
	<title>Re:Why would I want this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247064060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is a Linux distro that can't run any non-google-SDK software. No X server wipes out being able to run most of the GUI software in the ecosystem. You locked to google. Why would I want this? Technical Linux people aren't going to want it.</p></div><p>and the technical linux people market is how many \% of the market?</p><p><div class="quote"><p> Normal users won't dare install any thing called an operating system. And everyone, will want to be able to run the apps they want, not only google approved ones. All this pain just for browser?</p> </div><p>normal users will be getting it with a new machine, not installing it themselves.  normal people already don't get to "run a lot of apps they want" depending on what machine they chose - buy a windows PC and you don't get iLife, for example.  buy a Mac and you don't get to run<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... most games<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Thing is, we don't want to be controlled, never have.</p> </div><p>how did you think MS got to the market share it has now?</p><p>you're looking at it all wrong.  ease &amp; speed of adoption + demand is a LOT more important than "current market players".  primary evidence being the iphone - before the iphone introduction, number of iphone apps was zero.  look at how many there are now.  just because there aren't really the kind of "web based apps" out there that can make you imagine what life would be like with a primarily web-based-app ecosystem doesn't mean there won't be, if Google can put enough machines out there in the hands of enough people.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a Linux distro that ca n't run any non-google-SDK software .
No X server wipes out being able to run most of the GUI software in the ecosystem .
You locked to google .
Why would I want this ?
Technical Linux people are n't going to want it.and the technical linux people market is how many \ % of the market ?
Normal users wo n't dare install any thing called an operating system .
And everyone , will want to be able to run the apps they want , not only google approved ones .
All this pain just for browser ?
normal users will be getting it with a new machine , not installing it themselves .
normal people already do n't get to " run a lot of apps they want " depending on what machine they chose - buy a windows PC and you do n't get iLife , for example .
buy a Mac and you do n't get to run ... most games : - ) Thing is , we do n't want to be controlled , never have .
how did you think MS got to the market share it has now ? you 're looking at it all wrong .
ease &amp; speed of adoption + demand is a LOT more important than " current market players " .
primary evidence being the iphone - before the iphone introduction , number of iphone apps was zero .
look at how many there are now .
just because there are n't really the kind of " web based apps " out there that can make you imagine what life would be like with a primarily web-based-app ecosystem does n't mean there wo n't be , if Google can put enough machines out there in the hands of enough people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a Linux distro that can't run any non-google-SDK software.
No X server wipes out being able to run most of the GUI software in the ecosystem.
You locked to google.
Why would I want this?
Technical Linux people aren't going to want it.and the technical linux people market is how many \% of the market?
Normal users won't dare install any thing called an operating system.
And everyone, will want to be able to run the apps they want, not only google approved ones.
All this pain just for browser?
normal users will be getting it with a new machine, not installing it themselves.
normal people already don't get to "run a lot of apps they want" depending on what machine they chose - buy a windows PC and you don't get iLife, for example.
buy a Mac and you don't get to run ... most games :-)Thing is, we don't want to be controlled, never have.
how did you think MS got to the market share it has now?you're looking at it all wrong.
ease &amp; speed of adoption + demand is a LOT more important than "current market players".
primary evidence being the iphone - before the iphone introduction, number of iphone apps was zero.
look at how many there are now.
just because there aren't really the kind of "web based apps" out there that can make you imagine what life would be like with a primarily web-based-app ecosystem doesn't mean there won't be, if Google can put enough machines out there in the hands of enough people.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28626453</id>
	<title>Re:Does this mean</title>
	<author>migla</author>
	<datestamp>1247082600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Depending of the definition of "Desktop", maybe 2010 (or 2011 or later) will be TYOTLD, technically. What will the "Google desktop" be like?</p><p>Maybe it will be a clean and simple thing that isn't anything like how I see a "Desktop".</p><p>If it is an simple appliance-like thing, it's not for me (but for Cletus and Mom and many others). That's ok.</p><p>So, then two new questions arise:<br>1. What will we call the Desktop as we "power users" see it? (Maybe power-user desktop").</p><p>2. Is "the year of the Google desktop" a good thing for "the year of the power-user linux desktop"? I think it probably is.</p><p>Am I making sense? I don't know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Depending of the definition of " Desktop " , maybe 2010 ( or 2011 or later ) will be TYOTLD , technically .
What will the " Google desktop " be like ? Maybe it will be a clean and simple thing that is n't anything like how I see a " Desktop " .If it is an simple appliance-like thing , it 's not for me ( but for Cletus and Mom and many others ) .
That 's ok.So , then two new questions arise : 1 .
What will we call the Desktop as we " power users " see it ?
( Maybe power-user desktop " ) .2 .
Is " the year of the Google desktop " a good thing for " the year of the power-user linux desktop " ?
I think it probably is.Am I making sense ?
I do n't know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depending of the definition of "Desktop", maybe 2010 (or 2011 or later) will be TYOTLD, technically.
What will the "Google desktop" be like?Maybe it will be a clean and simple thing that isn't anything like how I see a "Desktop".If it is an simple appliance-like thing, it's not for me (but for Cletus and Mom and many others).
That's ok.So, then two new questions arise:1.
What will we call the Desktop as we "power users" see it?
(Maybe power-user desktop").2.
Is "the year of the Google desktop" a good thing for "the year of the power-user linux desktop"?
I think it probably is.Am I making sense?
I don't know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28631065</id>
	<title>Re:Fast web OS needed!</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1247063340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This might just be the next revolution in the netbook industry.</p></div><p>There's an entire "netbook industry" now? I thought netbooks were just a product put out by the computer industry.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This might just be the next revolution in the netbook industry.There 's an entire " netbook industry " now ?
I thought netbooks were just a product put out by the computer industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This might just be the next revolution in the netbook industry.There's an entire "netbook industry" now?
I thought netbooks were just a product put out by the computer industry.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621789</id>
	<title>Re:The web is NOT the OS</title>
	<author>dan\_sdot</author>
	<datestamp>1247066340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is nonsense.  Web based applications are certainly only going to become more common... but your implication that soon everything will be over the web is silly.  The right tool for the right job my friend.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is nonsense .
Web based applications are certainly only going to become more common... but your implication that soon everything will be over the web is silly .
The right tool for the right job my friend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is nonsense.
Web based applications are certainly only going to become more common... but your implication that soon everything will be over the web is silly.
The right tool for the right job my friend.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621113</id>
	<title>Re:The one thing that could derail this would be..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247063940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, I would.
<br> <br>
I've got one of these latest and greatest machines (water cooled Core i7 and EVGA Classified) but:
<br>
1) Linux doesn't run any apps I want, like games.  If my priorities were different I might use it instead, but odds are I wouldn't have a high end machine unless I was doing calculations.  FWIW I run Fedora on my netbook.
<br>
2) Initial investment into the OS X hardware is too great to just "try" the OS.  However, I would drop $150 or whatever the cost of a license is these days to get more familiar with it.  I'm an IT guy, and a few of my users have Macs.  I don't know how to get much done since I haven't used Mac OS since 1998 or so.  Everything semi-complex I do requires me to use Google.  Hell I had to google search how to boot from a CD since it's not like other Intel PCs.  There was no "Press (ESC/F10/F8/F12/DEL/Vendor's Obscure Choice) for Boot Menu"<br> <br>
Yes, I could go the hackintosh route, which I might come Snow Leopard.  I would prefer to be legal on my software usage though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I would .
I 've got one of these latest and greatest machines ( water cooled Core i7 and EVGA Classified ) but : 1 ) Linux does n't run any apps I want , like games .
If my priorities were different I might use it instead , but odds are I would n't have a high end machine unless I was doing calculations .
FWIW I run Fedora on my netbook .
2 ) Initial investment into the OS X hardware is too great to just " try " the OS .
However , I would drop $ 150 or whatever the cost of a license is these days to get more familiar with it .
I 'm an IT guy , and a few of my users have Macs .
I do n't know how to get much done since I have n't used Mac OS since 1998 or so .
Everything semi-complex I do requires me to use Google .
Hell I had to google search how to boot from a CD since it 's not like other Intel PCs .
There was no " Press ( ESC/F10/F8/F12/DEL/Vendor 's Obscure Choice ) for Boot Menu " Yes , I could go the hackintosh route , which I might come Snow Leopard .
I would prefer to be legal on my software usage though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I would.
I've got one of these latest and greatest machines (water cooled Core i7 and EVGA Classified) but:

1) Linux doesn't run any apps I want, like games.
If my priorities were different I might use it instead, but odds are I wouldn't have a high end machine unless I was doing calculations.
FWIW I run Fedora on my netbook.
2) Initial investment into the OS X hardware is too great to just "try" the OS.
However, I would drop $150 or whatever the cost of a license is these days to get more familiar with it.
I'm an IT guy, and a few of my users have Macs.
I don't know how to get much done since I haven't used Mac OS since 1998 or so.
Everything semi-complex I do requires me to use Google.
Hell I had to google search how to boot from a CD since it's not like other Intel PCs.
There was no "Press (ESC/F10/F8/F12/DEL/Vendor's Obscure Choice) for Boot Menu" 
Yes, I could go the hackintosh route, which I might come Snow Leopard.
I would prefer to be legal on my software usage though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620573</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_155</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619981
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28639341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623273
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_179</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620587
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_171</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28643679
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_165</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28628971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_123</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28628187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621009
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_189</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619929
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_181</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621059
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28628009
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_206</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620741
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28627241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28624783
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621445
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620725
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28624973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_214</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28626453
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_194</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28624499
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623039
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_152</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619981
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_128</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622675
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619929
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_160</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622631
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28633263
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_138</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28631509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_201</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_170</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28627021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28624613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_211</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28639885
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_144</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619981
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28624739
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619981
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625039
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623311
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28630355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28627133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620599
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620979
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619929
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621913
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619929
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28633805
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_173</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28631065
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_127</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_131</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28629731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621807
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28626101
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_183</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620653
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_141</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_200</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28632449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_133</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619981
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620417
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28638309
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28631743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_168</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28624427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_143</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28632305
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_154</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28624235
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621549
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_209</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28628243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_178</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620305
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621465
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_162</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620395
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_120</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620549
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620363
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_219</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28624443
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620189
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_186</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619981
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625439
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_203</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619981
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_197</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623969
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_172</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_130</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619929
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620635
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28664957
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_213</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_180</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621155
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_199</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_157</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619981
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622267
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_191</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28626471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622027
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_167</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619929
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620705
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625457
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619981
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620923
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_208</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28631733
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_129</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28626797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28626045
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28649821
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_216</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620951
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_137</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623393
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_148</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_202</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_196</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28627585
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625755
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_210</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620329
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28627187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28645389
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622845
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_124</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28626135
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_122</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28631019
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625933
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_188</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_146</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620513
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_132</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28633151
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28627851
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620357
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621705
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28632485
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_140</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623265
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_159</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622989
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_151</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28683451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622655
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28631463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_175</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28632367
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_169</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_161</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623713
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621677
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28736975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622799
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_185</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625857
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_177</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621881
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28666263
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_135</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623339
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_121</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620605
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620741
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28633981
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_218</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28627303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_187</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621099
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_198</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623389
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_145</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_156</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28630755
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619981
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625683
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_164</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_150</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28629011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625707
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_205</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28626253
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_126</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620795
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_174</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28624299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28624975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623287
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622849
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_215</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621513
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_136</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28626407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_182</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620345
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_193</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621063
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28624051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28630687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620453
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621641
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619929
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620439
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623213
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620221
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_139</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625695
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_204</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622489
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_125</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621357
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621317
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_212</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28626305
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_147</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621339
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_158</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_192</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619981
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28624567
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620641
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_190</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620819
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623481
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622071
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_220</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620747
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_166</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621957
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621923
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622967
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_207</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623309
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_176</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28645753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_134</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619929
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_217</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621611
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_184</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619929
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625103
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_195</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619929
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_142</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620869
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_149</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28626075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_153</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619981
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28630957
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620165
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28629421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_0953238_163</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28628113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_0953238.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620305
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621465
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_0953238.39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620301
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_0953238.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622905
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_0953238.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619951
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_0953238.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620449
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_0953238.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620199
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620513
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28638309
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621297
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28624443
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622655
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28631463
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620819
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623481
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620771
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28627851
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28627303
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622139
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621611
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_0953238.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622289
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_0953238.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619971
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_0953238.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620375
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28645753
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621445
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28627585
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621763
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28624567
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621431
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28736975
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28624299
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28664957
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28626045
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623969
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622829
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621601
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28643679
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621307
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620877
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28632305
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621155
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28666263
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_0953238.40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621749
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_0953238.43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620579
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28624427
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623973
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28624235
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_0953238.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620045
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625683
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621807
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622845
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623111
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621549
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620455
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623039
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620587
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622027
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623309
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622523
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_0953238.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619927
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620099
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620741
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28633981
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28627241
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620951
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620201
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620221
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_0953238.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28628871
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_0953238.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620573
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28631733
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621357
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621113
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621087
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_0953238.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619929
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619967
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620219
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620635
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625171
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620607
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625103
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28633805
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625819
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625081
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620791
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620439
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620705
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625457
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_0953238.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28628697
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_0953238.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621599
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_0953238.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619965
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622241
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620123
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28632449
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623333
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28626407
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621255
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28624973
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621961
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625449
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623893
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28626797
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28626101
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28626253
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622113
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28626135
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28624739
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622731
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623669
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28626075
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28630755
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28624975
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28631509
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623273
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620605
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620847
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620329
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621059
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28628009
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620869
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620453
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620345
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620169
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620255
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622967
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620725
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_0953238.45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620139
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621099
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620747
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620385
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625707
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28645389
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622303
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620391
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622799
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623511
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620715
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620625
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621009
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620425
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620409
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621495
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620549
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620789
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620357
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_0953238.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620039
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625889
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623079
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623213
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623389
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621641
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622631
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620641
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620857
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623627
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623311
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28624051
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28630687
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28627021
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620461
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621957
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621317
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620749
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620341
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621339
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622989
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620617
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28633151
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28649821
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620907
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620189
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620165
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620363
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620521
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621543
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28683451
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621913
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623339
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621705
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28627187
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28628187
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621937
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621341
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28628113
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28632485
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622849
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28630355
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625237
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623459
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621789
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622675
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623297
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621923
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623713
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620599
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621513
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_0953238.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28624613
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620633
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621521
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620979
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620697
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623393
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622471
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28631065
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621677
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623925
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621033
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_0953238.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622489
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_0953238.42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621345
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625755
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625857
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_0953238.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619981
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620241
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620393
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621349
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625439
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620417
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28630957
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620275
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620677
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622267
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28639341
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620923
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625039
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620687
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625197
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620347
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_0953238.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623977
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_0953238.36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620483
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_0953238.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620459
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_0953238.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620465
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28631743
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_0953238.37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620471
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621063
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_0953238.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621043
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_0953238.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619957
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_0953238.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622917
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_0953238.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619925
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_0953238.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620209
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_0953238.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620145
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621863
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620757
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620653
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28622071
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620395
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28633263
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_0953238.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620861
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28628971
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28626471
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28624783
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625933
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28629421
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_0953238.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620737
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_0953238.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620891
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621881
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623757
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623287
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_0953238.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621079
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_0953238.44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28619995
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620291
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620795
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28629731
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_0953238.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621325
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28624499
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_0953238.41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620501
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_0953238.38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620873
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28628243
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_0953238.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620225
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28631019
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623093
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621105
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28639885
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28629011
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28626453
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28632367
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28627133
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623897
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621603
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28625695
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28626305
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28621371
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623285
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_0953238.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28620889
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_0953238.28623265
</commentlist>
</conversation>
