<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_13_1533251</id>
	<title>Hands-On Preview of Microsoft Office 2010</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1247503680000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/" rel="nofollow">Barence</a> writes <i>"Microsoft has announced <a href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/261430/everything-you-need-to-know-about-microsoft-office-2010.html">full details of Office 2010</a> and its plans for an accompanying suite of online applications, and PC Pro has been given special access to a technical preview. Contributing Editor Simon Jones gives his <a href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/reviews/261373/first-look-microsoft-office-2010.html">initial verdict on the new suite</a>, concluding that there's 'still a long way to go in terms of fit and finish ... but overall Microsoft has made good strides in increasing usability, cohesiveness and collaboration.' This is followed by detailed first looks at <a href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/reviews/261397/first-looks-microsoft-word-2010-excel-2010-outlook-2010-and-powerpoint-2010.html">Word 2010, Excel 2010, Outlook 2010 and PowerPoint 2010</a>, with Outlook certainly looking to be the greatest beneficiary. And finally, a <a href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2009/07/13/microsoft-office-2010-screenshots/">gallery of screenshots</a> shows off all the new interface touches in Office 2010, including Outlook's conversation view, Word's picture-editing function and the new cut-and-paste preview option."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Barence writes " Microsoft has announced full details of Office 2010 and its plans for an accompanying suite of online applications , and PC Pro has been given special access to a technical preview .
Contributing Editor Simon Jones gives his initial verdict on the new suite , concluding that there 's 'still a long way to go in terms of fit and finish ... but overall Microsoft has made good strides in increasing usability , cohesiveness and collaboration .
' This is followed by detailed first looks at Word 2010 , Excel 2010 , Outlook 2010 and PowerPoint 2010 , with Outlook certainly looking to be the greatest beneficiary .
And finally , a gallery of screenshots shows off all the new interface touches in Office 2010 , including Outlook 's conversation view , Word 's picture-editing function and the new cut-and-paste preview option .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Barence writes "Microsoft has announced full details of Office 2010 and its plans for an accompanying suite of online applications, and PC Pro has been given special access to a technical preview.
Contributing Editor Simon Jones gives his initial verdict on the new suite, concluding that there's 'still a long way to go in terms of fit and finish ... but overall Microsoft has made good strides in increasing usability, cohesiveness and collaboration.
' This is followed by detailed first looks at Word 2010, Excel 2010, Outlook 2010 and PowerPoint 2010, with Outlook certainly looking to be the greatest beneficiary.
And finally, a gallery of screenshots shows off all the new interface touches in Office 2010, including Outlook's conversation view, Word's picture-editing function and the new cut-and-paste preview option.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678833</id>
	<title>Re:Memo to Microsoft: Leave it alone</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1247508420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So just stop upgrading. Files from recent versions go back and forth about as well as files from the same version, so compatibility isn't a huge problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So just stop upgrading .
Files from recent versions go back and forth about as well as files from the same version , so compatibility is n't a huge problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So just stop upgrading.
Files from recent versions go back and forth about as well as files from the same version, so compatibility isn't a huge problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678711</id>
	<title>But...still not fixed</title>
	<author>tomax7</author>
	<datestamp>1247508060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>&#226;&#166;but can PowerPoint incorporate BOTH a landscape and portrait setting in the same slideshow yet?  Or can users rearrange the Quick Access Toolbar by dragging the icons around instead of the retarded way of going into the Options/Customize area? Or Excel open with the page break showing, as in dotted lines showing the margins?</htmltext>
<tokenext>    but can PowerPoint incorporate BOTH a landscape and portrait setting in the same slideshow yet ?
Or can users rearrange the Quick Access Toolbar by dragging the icons around instead of the retarded way of going into the Options/Customize area ?
Or Excel open with the page break showing , as in dotted lines showing the margins ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>â¦but can PowerPoint incorporate BOTH a landscape and portrait setting in the same slideshow yet?
Or can users rearrange the Quick Access Toolbar by dragging the icons around instead of the retarded way of going into the Options/Customize area?
Or Excel open with the page break showing, as in dotted lines showing the margins?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28682085</id>
	<title>Conversation cleanup!?</title>
	<author>dstones</author>
	<datestamp>1247477280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The Conversation Clean-Up tool will condense long email chains into summaries of the conversation, allowing you to catch up with all the key information without having to open dozens of different messages individually."
<a href="href" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/261430/everything-you-need-to-know-about-microsoft-office-2010.html</a> [slashdot.org]&gt;
<br>
<br>
Congratulations Microsoft. Welcome to the 21st century. 'Bout time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The Conversation Clean-Up tool will condense long email chains into summaries of the conversation , allowing you to catch up with all the key information without having to open dozens of different messages individually .
" http : //www.pcpro.co.uk/news/261430/everything-you-need-to-know-about-microsoft-office-2010.html [ slashdot.org ] &gt; Congratulations Microsoft .
Welcome to the 21st century .
'Bout time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The Conversation Clean-Up tool will condense long email chains into summaries of the conversation, allowing you to catch up with all the key information without having to open dozens of different messages individually.
"
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/261430/everything-you-need-to-know-about-microsoft-office-2010.html [slashdot.org]&gt;


Congratulations Microsoft.
Welcome to the 21st century.
'Bout time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28683063</id>
	<title>Re:WordPerfect 5.1</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1247481360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So do that. Why are you whinging on here about it? There are tons of free VM products, on the off-chance it won't run in Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So do that .
Why are you whinging on here about it ?
There are tons of free VM products , on the off-chance it wo n't run in Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So do that.
Why are you whinging on here about it?
There are tons of free VM products, on the off-chance it won't run in Windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679009</id>
	<title>Re:ribbons</title>
	<author>Shados</author>
	<datestamp>1247508960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>here (douzens of thousands of heavy Office users), we're not quite done testing all our stuff with 2007 (our documents are fine, but some plugins have to be upgraded, and integration with in house apps have to be tested, etc), but we have to hold users back with chains from upgrading to 2007 (well, its a metaphore obviously, they can't upgrade on their own). -EVERYONE- wants it. Bad. The UI is a lot better for people who don't know Office by heart, and there's a lot of new features, mainly in the business intelligence integration and collaboration that make people drool over it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>here ( douzens of thousands of heavy Office users ) , we 're not quite done testing all our stuff with 2007 ( our documents are fine , but some plugins have to be upgraded , and integration with in house apps have to be tested , etc ) , but we have to hold users back with chains from upgrading to 2007 ( well , its a metaphore obviously , they ca n't upgrade on their own ) .
-EVERYONE- wants it .
Bad. The UI is a lot better for people who do n't know Office by heart , and there 's a lot of new features , mainly in the business intelligence integration and collaboration that make people drool over it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>here (douzens of thousands of heavy Office users), we're not quite done testing all our stuff with 2007 (our documents are fine, but some plugins have to be upgraded, and integration with in house apps have to be tested, etc), but we have to hold users back with chains from upgrading to 2007 (well, its a metaphore obviously, they can't upgrade on their own).
-EVERYONE- wants it.
Bad. The UI is a lot better for people who don't know Office by heart, and there's a lot of new features, mainly in the business intelligence integration and collaboration that make people drool over it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679775</id>
	<title>Yawn...</title>
	<author>sbeckstead</author>
	<datestamp>1247511360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who cares?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28682865</id>
	<title>Re:'Conversation View' == Threaded mail?</title>
	<author>cbhacking</author>
	<datestamp>1247480580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Outlook has had threaded conversations since *at least* 2003, maybe further back (that was when I first looked for the feature). The main differences in 2010 are twofold: messages that are part of the same conversation but spread across multiple folders are shown together (including your sent messages when viewing a thread in your inbox, for example), and redundent messages (ones where the response incorporates the original message, making the original redundent) are hidden by default (they can be shown if you please) which helps prevent one long thread from filling up the whole screen and being difficult to navigate between cranches of.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Outlook has had threaded conversations since * at least * 2003 , maybe further back ( that was when I first looked for the feature ) .
The main differences in 2010 are twofold : messages that are part of the same conversation but spread across multiple folders are shown together ( including your sent messages when viewing a thread in your inbox , for example ) , and redundent messages ( ones where the response incorporates the original message , making the original redundent ) are hidden by default ( they can be shown if you please ) which helps prevent one long thread from filling up the whole screen and being difficult to navigate between cranches of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Outlook has had threaded conversations since *at least* 2003, maybe further back (that was when I first looked for the feature).
The main differences in 2010 are twofold: messages that are part of the same conversation but spread across multiple folders are shown together (including your sent messages when viewing a thread in your inbox, for example), and redundent messages (ones where the response incorporates the original message, making the original redundent) are hidden by default (they can be shown if you please) which helps prevent one long thread from filling up the whole screen and being difficult to navigate between cranches of.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28683597</id>
	<title>Re:ODF</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247484060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uhh. Your linked article talks about how it's incompatible with OpenOffice. Microsoft's ODF implementation follows the ODF standard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhh .
Your linked article talks about how it 's incompatible with OpenOffice .
Microsoft 's ODF implementation follows the ODF standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhh.
Your linked article talks about how it's incompatible with OpenOffice.
Microsoft's ODF implementation follows the ODF standard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28683429</id>
	<title>We do, sadly</title>
	<author>theolein</author>
	<datestamp>1247482980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're still getting used to Office 2007 and now they bring along Office 2010???? I wonder, with no attempt at flaming Microsoft, just who the fuck is going to buy this given the current state of the economy? What exactly will Office 2010 do that we couldn't live without? This actually applies to almost all Office versions, since a good 90\% of what we use it for could just as easily be done with Office 2000 or OOo or even Google Apps for that matter.</p><p>I appreciate Microsoft's burning need to try and come up with new features in order to justify the high costs of its products, but this is just ridiculous. This is like the PC magazines making wild claims about new exclusive content on some or other product only for it to be the same rubbish as before, with a new type face and different images.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're still getting used to Office 2007 and now they bring along Office 2010 ? ? ? ?
I wonder , with no attempt at flaming Microsoft , just who the fuck is going to buy this given the current state of the economy ?
What exactly will Office 2010 do that we could n't live without ?
This actually applies to almost all Office versions , since a good 90 \ % of what we use it for could just as easily be done with Office 2000 or OOo or even Google Apps for that matter.I appreciate Microsoft 's burning need to try and come up with new features in order to justify the high costs of its products , but this is just ridiculous .
This is like the PC magazines making wild claims about new exclusive content on some or other product only for it to be the same rubbish as before , with a new type face and different images .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're still getting used to Office 2007 and now they bring along Office 2010????
I wonder, with no attempt at flaming Microsoft, just who the fuck is going to buy this given the current state of the economy?
What exactly will Office 2010 do that we couldn't live without?
This actually applies to almost all Office versions, since a good 90\% of what we use it for could just as easily be done with Office 2000 or OOo or even Google Apps for that matter.I appreciate Microsoft's burning need to try and come up with new features in order to justify the high costs of its products, but this is just ridiculous.
This is like the PC magazines making wild claims about new exclusive content on some or other product only for it to be the same rubbish as before, with a new type face and different images.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678497</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679789</id>
	<title>Re:ODF</title>
	<author>zorro-z</author>
	<datestamp>1247511420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MS has reason to *not* support ODF, given its past pushing of OOXML, etc. At the very least, if MS *does* support ODF, one should expect it to do so in a very unenthusiastic mannter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MS has reason to * not * support ODF , given its past pushing of OOXML , etc .
At the very least , if MS * does * support ODF , one should expect it to do so in a very unenthusiastic mannter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS has reason to *not* support ODF, given its past pushing of OOXML, etc.
At the very least, if MS *does* support ODF, one should expect it to do so in a very unenthusiastic mannter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28690227</id>
	<title>Re:ribbons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247582700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See the Forester Research paper for yourself.<br>The Microsoft Office Fluent User Interface: Information Worker Perception Of Productivity, Training, And Support Requirements</p><p>http://download.microsoft.com/download/D/9/8/D98428F7-18CA-49F4-8A99-0F1B76C97435/2007\%20Microsoft\%20Office\%20Fluent\%20UI\%20Study\%20Information\%20Worders\%20-\%20Forrester\%20Research.pdf</p><p>The inital loss of productivity on switching to Office 2007 was estimated at about 12\%. The average time to return to the same productivity as before was 2.5 weeks. After that, the perceived productivity continued to rise until it reached a plateau of "slightly more productive" from about eight weeks. (See page 9)</p><p>Simon Jones<br>Contributing Editor<br>PC Pro</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See the Forester Research paper for yourself.The Microsoft Office Fluent User Interface : Information Worker Perception Of Productivity , Training , And Support Requirementshttp : //download.microsoft.com/download/D/9/8/D98428F7-18CA-49F4-8A99-0F1B76C97435/2007 \ % 20Microsoft \ % 20Office \ % 20Fluent \ % 20UI \ % 20Study \ % 20Information \ % 20Worders \ % 20- \ % 20Forrester \ % 20Research.pdfThe inital loss of productivity on switching to Office 2007 was estimated at about 12 \ % .
The average time to return to the same productivity as before was 2.5 weeks .
After that , the perceived productivity continued to rise until it reached a plateau of " slightly more productive " from about eight weeks .
( See page 9 ) Simon JonesContributing EditorPC Pro</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See the Forester Research paper for yourself.The Microsoft Office Fluent User Interface: Information Worker Perception Of Productivity, Training, And Support Requirementshttp://download.microsoft.com/download/D/9/8/D98428F7-18CA-49F4-8A99-0F1B76C97435/2007\%20Microsoft\%20Office\%20Fluent\%20UI\%20Study\%20Information\%20Worders\%20-\%20Forrester\%20Research.pdfThe inital loss of productivity on switching to Office 2007 was estimated at about 12\%.
The average time to return to the same productivity as before was 2.5 weeks.
After that, the perceived productivity continued to rise until it reached a plateau of "slightly more productive" from about eight weeks.
(See page 9)Simon JonesContributing EditorPC Pro</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28685135</id>
	<title>Re:Three Reasons to Hate the Ribbon</title>
	<author>initialE</author>
	<datestamp>1247494440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm typing this on 1440x900 screen, so yes, vertical screen space is valuable. Especially since this screen is sold as a 19" wide, and has less vertical pixels than a 17" square (1280x1024), my previous screen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm typing this on 1440x900 screen , so yes , vertical screen space is valuable .
Especially since this screen is sold as a 19 " wide , and has less vertical pixels than a 17 " square ( 1280x1024 ) , my previous screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm typing this on 1440x900 screen, so yes, vertical screen space is valuable.
Especially since this screen is sold as a 19" wide, and has less vertical pixels than a 17" square (1280x1024), my previous screen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679413</id>
	<title>Re:Memo to Microsoft: Leave it alone</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1247510400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We've all figured out how the app works, what the keyboard shortcuts are, where in each menu our most-used commands are, and how to use mail merge. STOP CHANGING IT.</p></div><p>This is not only true for Office products, but operating systems as well. Seriously, Windows 7? Why did they rename/move around everything I need to know. Why can't it START in classic mode and I can make it flashy if I want it to be...</p><p>These kinds of things should be intuitive, familiar, and easy. Its like they're trying to make me play Halo on Southpaw Legacy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've all figured out how the app works , what the keyboard shortcuts are , where in each menu our most-used commands are , and how to use mail merge .
STOP CHANGING IT.This is not only true for Office products , but operating systems as well .
Seriously , Windows 7 ?
Why did they rename/move around everything I need to know .
Why ca n't it START in classic mode and I can make it flashy if I want it to be...These kinds of things should be intuitive , familiar , and easy .
Its like they 're trying to make me play Halo on Southpaw Legacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've all figured out how the app works, what the keyboard shortcuts are, where in each menu our most-used commands are, and how to use mail merge.
STOP CHANGING IT.This is not only true for Office products, but operating systems as well.
Seriously, Windows 7?
Why did they rename/move around everything I need to know.
Why can't it START in classic mode and I can make it flashy if I want it to be...These kinds of things should be intuitive, familiar, and easy.
Its like they're trying to make me play Halo on Southpaw Legacy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28681187</id>
	<title>Re:The last good version of Microsoft Word</title>
	<author>Gadget\_Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1247516940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's amazing. It has obviously been 17 years since you have seen any version of Word. Extensibility is one of the great features of Office.</p><p>I have written my own addons to Word to pull data from our central database and to seemlessly integrate with our network fax server. Our accounts department Word to link to their <a href="http://www.myob.com/" title="myob.com">accounting software</a> [myob.com] to facilitate invoicing. My wife uses a plugin to handle her <a href="http://www.endnote.com/" title="endnote.com">citations</a> [endnote.com] at university. All this is done using external plugins for Word.</p><p>When they released Windows 95, Microsoft pushed ActiveX hoping to change the way we thought about applications. Their idea was that programs would become building blocks that would seemlessly fit inside each other rather than discrete - like the way you could embed an organisation chart in a Word or Excel document. The concept really failed to catch on, I think mainly due to the problem of not being able to send your documents to other people who did not have the same ActiveX controls.</p><p>It also caused problems when people upgrade software versions. A lot of the problems that people have tring to mix different versions of Office products can be traced back to embedded ActiveX controls.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's amazing .
It has obviously been 17 years since you have seen any version of Word .
Extensibility is one of the great features of Office.I have written my own addons to Word to pull data from our central database and to seemlessly integrate with our network fax server .
Our accounts department Word to link to their accounting software [ myob.com ] to facilitate invoicing .
My wife uses a plugin to handle her citations [ endnote.com ] at university .
All this is done using external plugins for Word.When they released Windows 95 , Microsoft pushed ActiveX hoping to change the way we thought about applications .
Their idea was that programs would become building blocks that would seemlessly fit inside each other rather than discrete - like the way you could embed an organisation chart in a Word or Excel document .
The concept really failed to catch on , I think mainly due to the problem of not being able to send your documents to other people who did not have the same ActiveX controls.It also caused problems when people upgrade software versions .
A lot of the problems that people have tring to mix different versions of Office products can be traced back to embedded ActiveX controls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's amazing.
It has obviously been 17 years since you have seen any version of Word.
Extensibility is one of the great features of Office.I have written my own addons to Word to pull data from our central database and to seemlessly integrate with our network fax server.
Our accounts department Word to link to their accounting software [myob.com] to facilitate invoicing.
My wife uses a plugin to handle her citations [endnote.com] at university.
All this is done using external plugins for Word.When they released Windows 95, Microsoft pushed ActiveX hoping to change the way we thought about applications.
Their idea was that programs would become building blocks that would seemlessly fit inside each other rather than discrete - like the way you could embed an organisation chart in a Word or Excel document.
The concept really failed to catch on, I think mainly due to the problem of not being able to send your documents to other people who did not have the same ActiveX controls.It also caused problems when people upgrade software versions.
A lot of the problems that people have tring to mix different versions of Office products can be traced back to embedded ActiveX controls.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678913</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28682345</id>
	<title>Re:Not again!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247478480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Could we please get past the 1990's Microsoft vs. Linux attitude and admit that it's possible for one arm of a company to do bad things while another arm of the company does good things? Not everything boils down to a "good vs. evil" essential conflict.</p></div><p>That requires a nuanced point of view, something which most people at this site are not good at.</p><p>(Cue "wah, Slashdot is not one person.")</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could we please get past the 1990 's Microsoft vs. Linux attitude and admit that it 's possible for one arm of a company to do bad things while another arm of the company does good things ?
Not everything boils down to a " good vs. evil " essential conflict.That requires a nuanced point of view , something which most people at this site are not good at .
( Cue " wah , Slashdot is not one person .
" )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could we please get past the 1990's Microsoft vs. Linux attitude and admit that it's possible for one arm of a company to do bad things while another arm of the company does good things?
Not everything boils down to a "good vs. evil" essential conflict.That requires a nuanced point of view, something which most people at this site are not good at.
(Cue "wah, Slashdot is not one person.
")
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28681963</id>
	<title>Re:Three Reasons to Hate the Ribbon</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1247476800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So is the problem the ribbon UI or the lack of customization? I know as long as there is no customization they are effectively one-in-the-same but if you had free will over how it works, would you stick with the menu-based or ribbon-based layout? Basically is the ribbon a bad innovation, or is it merely poor execution?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So is the problem the ribbon UI or the lack of customization ?
I know as long as there is no customization they are effectively one-in-the-same but if you had free will over how it works , would you stick with the menu-based or ribbon-based layout ?
Basically is the ribbon a bad innovation , or is it merely poor execution ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So is the problem the ribbon UI or the lack of customization?
I know as long as there is no customization they are effectively one-in-the-same but if you had free will over how it works, would you stick with the menu-based or ribbon-based layout?
Basically is the ribbon a bad innovation, or is it merely poor execution?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679097</id>
	<title>Re:Memo to Microsoft: Leave it alone</title>
	<author>spyrochaete</author>
	<datestamp>1247509260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because "View / Header and Footer" is the way you're used to doing it, doesn't mean it's the best way.  Word has been evolving and expanding all this time.  You can only shoehorn new features into the old UI for so long before it becomes convoluted.</p><p>To learn the new ribbon all you have to do is think about what you are trying to accomplish and then navigate where you think it ought to belong.  The new layout means you will find related functions that will improve your productivity and quality of communication.  It's nothing but a good thing.</p><p>FYI, old hotkeys from previous versions of Office still work (e.g., Alt-F, S, will still save your document even though there's no "File" pulldown with a "Save" command.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because " View / Header and Footer " is the way you 're used to doing it , does n't mean it 's the best way .
Word has been evolving and expanding all this time .
You can only shoehorn new features into the old UI for so long before it becomes convoluted.To learn the new ribbon all you have to do is think about what you are trying to accomplish and then navigate where you think it ought to belong .
The new layout means you will find related functions that will improve your productivity and quality of communication .
It 's nothing but a good thing.FYI , old hotkeys from previous versions of Office still work ( e.g. , Alt-F , S , will still save your document even though there 's no " File " pulldown with a " Save " command .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because "View / Header and Footer" is the way you're used to doing it, doesn't mean it's the best way.
Word has been evolving and expanding all this time.
You can only shoehorn new features into the old UI for so long before it becomes convoluted.To learn the new ribbon all you have to do is think about what you are trying to accomplish and then navigate where you think it ought to belong.
The new layout means you will find related functions that will improve your productivity and quality of communication.
It's nothing but a good thing.FYI, old hotkeys from previous versions of Office still work (e.g., Alt-F, S, will still save your document even though there's no "File" pulldown with a "Save" command.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679941</id>
	<title>Re:A lot of effort and money</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247511900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Huh? Do you actually work for a living?</p><p>I use Excel constantly - because it is a great business tool. My data stays local, gets integrated on my servers with what I want, and Excel provides all the analytical tools I need.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh ?
Do you actually work for a living ? I use Excel constantly - because it is a great business tool .
My data stays local , gets integrated on my servers with what I want , and Excel provides all the analytical tools I need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh?
Do you actually work for a living?I use Excel constantly - because it is a great business tool.
My data stays local, gets integrated on my servers with what I want, and Excel provides all the analytical tools I need.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678869</id>
	<title>The Ribbon...</title>
	<author>MrEricSir</author>
	<datestamp>1247508540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...is the new Clippy.  If you want people to use Office, you need to get rid of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...is the new Clippy .
If you want people to use Office , you need to get rid of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is the new Clippy.
If you want people to use Office, you need to get rid of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678845</id>
	<title>Re:who uses it anyway?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247508420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet. It may be ready for the web servers that you nerds use to distribute your TRON fanzines and personal Dungeons and Dragons web-sights across the world wide web, but the average administrative assistant isn't going to spend months learning how to use a CLI and then hours compiling packages so that they can get a workable graphic interface to use a word processor and spreadsheet, especially not when they already have a Windows machine that does its job perfectly well and is backed by a major corporation, as opposed to Linux which is only supported by a few unemployed nerds living in their mother's basement somewhere. The last thing I want is a level 5 dwarf (haha) providing me my OS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux just is n't ready for the desktop yet .
It may be ready for the web servers that you nerds use to distribute your TRON fanzines and personal Dungeons and Dragons web-sights across the world wide web , but the average administrative assistant is n't going to spend months learning how to use a CLI and then hours compiling packages so that they can get a workable graphic interface to use a word processor and spreadsheet , especially not when they already have a Windows machine that does its job perfectly well and is backed by a major corporation , as opposed to Linux which is only supported by a few unemployed nerds living in their mother 's basement somewhere .
The last thing I want is a level 5 dwarf ( haha ) providing me my OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.
It may be ready for the web servers that you nerds use to distribute your TRON fanzines and personal Dungeons and Dragons web-sights across the world wide web, but the average administrative assistant isn't going to spend months learning how to use a CLI and then hours compiling packages so that they can get a workable graphic interface to use a word processor and spreadsheet, especially not when they already have a Windows machine that does its job perfectly well and is backed by a major corporation, as opposed to Linux which is only supported by a few unemployed nerds living in their mother's basement somewhere.
The last thing I want is a level 5 dwarf (haha) providing me my OS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678497</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678999</id>
	<title>Re:ribbons</title>
	<author>DeadChobi</author>
	<datestamp>1247508960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get 33 people and I'll believe you. Even then, at a 99\% confidence interval your anecdotal evidence may not be statistically significant. I'm more inclined to believe that that 2.4\% dislike it because they expected to find it harder to use, and, not being disappointed, continued to not use it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get 33 people and I 'll believe you .
Even then , at a 99 \ % confidence interval your anecdotal evidence may not be statistically significant .
I 'm more inclined to believe that that 2.4 \ % dislike it because they expected to find it harder to use , and , not being disappointed , continued to not use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get 33 people and I'll believe you.
Even then, at a 99\% confidence interval your anecdotal evidence may not be statistically significant.
I'm more inclined to believe that that 2.4\% dislike it because they expected to find it harder to use, and, not being disappointed, continued to not use it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28681583</id>
	<title>Re:Three Reasons to Hate the Ribbon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247518440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It cannot be repositioned, but it CAN be completely hidden and made to only appear temporarily when you click a tab - making it functionally similar to your precious menus. The ribbon can also be customized. As for offering the "backwards compatibility" of the old menus, imagine the UI design and support nightmare that would entail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It can not be repositioned , but it CAN be completely hidden and made to only appear temporarily when you click a tab - making it functionally similar to your precious menus .
The ribbon can also be customized .
As for offering the " backwards compatibility " of the old menus , imagine the UI design and support nightmare that would entail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It cannot be repositioned, but it CAN be completely hidden and made to only appear temporarily when you click a tab - making it functionally similar to your precious menus.
The ribbon can also be customized.
As for offering the "backwards compatibility" of the old menus, imagine the UI design and support nightmare that would entail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28686217</id>
	<title>Sparklines?</title>
	<author>AdamHaun</author>
	<datestamp>1247503380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Excel 2010 is getting Sparklines, does that mean someone at Microsoft has read Tufte? Could we finally be getting default graphs that don't break every rule of good data graphics? It's probably too much to hope for, but I can dream...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Excel 2010 is getting Sparklines , does that mean someone at Microsoft has read Tufte ?
Could we finally be getting default graphs that do n't break every rule of good data graphics ?
It 's probably too much to hope for , but I can dream.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Excel 2010 is getting Sparklines, does that mean someone at Microsoft has read Tufte?
Could we finally be getting default graphs that don't break every rule of good data graphics?
It's probably too much to hope for, but I can dream...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28681779</id>
	<title>Re:Not again!</title>
	<author>maamold</author>
	<datestamp>1247476080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What people are saying is that the GUI interface can be a good thing, but giving the OPTION to use the old interface would be better</htmltext>
<tokenext>What people are saying is that the GUI interface can be a good thing , but giving the OPTION to use the old interface would be better</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What people are saying is that the GUI interface can be a good thing, but giving the OPTION to use the old interface would be better</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679167</id>
	<title>Re:'Conversation View' == Threaded mail?</title>
	<author>dedazo</author>
	<datestamp>1247509500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Yeah. Way to innovate there, Redmon. Congratulations on entering the 1990s!</p></div></blockquote><p>Outlook has supported threaded discussion views for email and post folders since the 2000 version. Here's a <a href="http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/HA011357041033.aspx" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">walk through</a> [microsoft.com] for 2003. First hit on Google searching for 'outlook threaded view'</p><p>While threaded mode is useful for some things, there are other nice ways to visualize your stuff on Outlook that I like.</p><p>View -&gt; Arrange By -&gt; Conversation on OLK2003 is essentially the same as GMail mode, for example.</p><p>A quick switch to Message Timeline view is also extremely useful in those situations where someone says "it's an email from 03/12/70" or something like that and you want to look quickly at the entire sequence sorted by message rather than simply by date.</p><p>The "Show in groups" thing is priceless as a visual aide to stuff that's happened in the last few weeks.</p><p>I think Outlook is an example of Microsoft's better software efforts. It has its quirks and limitations of course, but overall it's <i>far</i> better than most other mail clients I've used in the past 15 years. And I'm not even considering Exchange integration here.</p><p>Congratulations on getting modded up though. My theory that mod points are being increasingly farmed out to rhesus monkeys and squirrels on steroids continues to pan out.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah .
Way to innovate there , Redmon .
Congratulations on entering the 1990s ! Outlook has supported threaded discussion views for email and post folders since the 2000 version .
Here 's a walk through [ microsoft.com ] for 2003 .
First hit on Google searching for 'outlook threaded view'While threaded mode is useful for some things , there are other nice ways to visualize your stuff on Outlook that I like.View - &gt; Arrange By - &gt; Conversation on OLK2003 is essentially the same as GMail mode , for example.A quick switch to Message Timeline view is also extremely useful in those situations where someone says " it 's an email from 03/12/70 " or something like that and you want to look quickly at the entire sequence sorted by message rather than simply by date.The " Show in groups " thing is priceless as a visual aide to stuff that 's happened in the last few weeks.I think Outlook is an example of Microsoft 's better software efforts .
It has its quirks and limitations of course , but overall it 's far better than most other mail clients I 've used in the past 15 years .
And I 'm not even considering Exchange integration here.Congratulations on getting modded up though .
My theory that mod points are being increasingly farmed out to rhesus monkeys and squirrels on steroids continues to pan out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah.
Way to innovate there, Redmon.
Congratulations on entering the 1990s!Outlook has supported threaded discussion views for email and post folders since the 2000 version.
Here's a walk through [microsoft.com] for 2003.
First hit on Google searching for 'outlook threaded view'While threaded mode is useful for some things, there are other nice ways to visualize your stuff on Outlook that I like.View -&gt; Arrange By -&gt; Conversation on OLK2003 is essentially the same as GMail mode, for example.A quick switch to Message Timeline view is also extremely useful in those situations where someone says "it's an email from 03/12/70" or something like that and you want to look quickly at the entire sequence sorted by message rather than simply by date.The "Show in groups" thing is priceless as a visual aide to stuff that's happened in the last few weeks.I think Outlook is an example of Microsoft's better software efforts.
It has its quirks and limitations of course, but overall it's far better than most other mail clients I've used in the past 15 years.
And I'm not even considering Exchange integration here.Congratulations on getting modded up though.
My theory that mod points are being increasingly farmed out to rhesus monkeys and squirrels on steroids continues to pan out.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28685877</id>
	<title>Re:The last good version of Microsoft Word</title>
	<author>Macgrrl</author>
	<datestamp>1247500860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[pedant mode]Actually, it was version 5.1a[/pedant mode]</p><p>Oh, how I miss thee...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ pedant mode ] Actually , it was version 5.1a [ /pedant mode ] Oh , how I miss thee.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[pedant mode]Actually, it was version 5.1a[/pedant mode]Oh, how I miss thee...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678913</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680201</id>
	<title>Re:First Question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247512800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm running it right now on XP SP3.  It works with no major issues.</p><p>Please note I'm not making any comments on usability, I haven't made up my mind yet.  But it installs and runs without dragging the entire system down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm running it right now on XP SP3 .
It works with no major issues.Please note I 'm not making any comments on usability , I have n't made up my mind yet .
But it installs and runs without dragging the entire system down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm running it right now on XP SP3.
It works with no major issues.Please note I'm not making any comments on usability, I haven't made up my mind yet.
But it installs and runs without dragging the entire system down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679349</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678571</id>
	<title>ODF</title>
	<author>bogaboga</author>
	<datestamp>1247507640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any traction on solving or at least improving Microsoft's ODF implementation? The last time I checked, there were <a href="http://www.odfalliance.org/resources/fact-sheet-Microsoft-ODF-support.pdf" title="odfalliance.org"> serious issues </a> [odfalliance.org] with the implementation.</p><p>By the way, how does Office 2007's "Save-As-PDF" feature compare to the real thing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any traction on solving or at least improving Microsoft 's ODF implementation ?
The last time I checked , there were serious issues [ odfalliance.org ] with the implementation.By the way , how does Office 2007 's " Save-As-PDF " feature compare to the real thing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any traction on solving or at least improving Microsoft's ODF implementation?
The last time I checked, there were  serious issues  [odfalliance.org] with the implementation.By the way, how does Office 2007's "Save-As-PDF" feature compare to the real thing?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28682005</id>
	<title>Re:Good Enough</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247476980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Compared to MS Office (any version) OpenOffice is "good enough". It kind of does the job, but not quite if you want it to print in a reasonably similar format from any other app. OpenOffice 3 made me BUY MS Office. Yes, PAY money for it. For the first time I thought, right, this may be free, I may have been using it for two years, but it kind of does not cut the mustard, I need the real thing. It took me two days to reconcile "real thing" and Microsoft, but when it comes to office suites, they are way up there and nobody is even close, and I am happy to pull out my credit card.</p><p>Let me make it clear, I'm not a power user, I was just tweaking my CV and fooling about with spreadsheets for my studies. Get OpenOffice 3 and an evaluation MS Office license and try to do some corporate finance or stats problems on both...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Compared to MS Office ( any version ) OpenOffice is " good enough " .
It kind of does the job , but not quite if you want it to print in a reasonably similar format from any other app .
OpenOffice 3 made me BUY MS Office .
Yes , PAY money for it .
For the first time I thought , right , this may be free , I may have been using it for two years , but it kind of does not cut the mustard , I need the real thing .
It took me two days to reconcile " real thing " and Microsoft , but when it comes to office suites , they are way up there and nobody is even close , and I am happy to pull out my credit card.Let me make it clear , I 'm not a power user , I was just tweaking my CV and fooling about with spreadsheets for my studies .
Get OpenOffice 3 and an evaluation MS Office license and try to do some corporate finance or stats problems on both.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Compared to MS Office (any version) OpenOffice is "good enough".
It kind of does the job, but not quite if you want it to print in a reasonably similar format from any other app.
OpenOffice 3 made me BUY MS Office.
Yes, PAY money for it.
For the first time I thought, right, this may be free, I may have been using it for two years, but it kind of does not cut the mustard, I need the real thing.
It took me two days to reconcile "real thing" and Microsoft, but when it comes to office suites, they are way up there and nobody is even close, and I am happy to pull out my credit card.Let me make it clear, I'm not a power user, I was just tweaking my CV and fooling about with spreadsheets for my studies.
Get OpenOffice 3 and an evaluation MS Office license and try to do some corporate finance or stats problems on both...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28681215</id>
	<title>Re:Not again!</title>
	<author>jo42</author>
	<datestamp>1247517120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Will this crazy running for "the new" ever end?</p></div><p>Not as long as the quest for grubbing for more and even more money continues.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will this crazy running for " the new " ever end ? Not as long as the quest for grubbing for more and even more money continues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will this crazy running for "the new" ever end?Not as long as the quest for grubbing for more and even more money continues.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678685</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680079</id>
	<title>Re:WordPerfect 5.1</title>
	<author>spyrochaete</author>
	<datestamp>1247512380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess I don't need to ask why your sentence is in past tense.  DOS and dot matrix printers used to suffice as well, but do you intend to distribute your hard work with modems and floppies?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess I do n't need to ask why your sentence is in past tense .
DOS and dot matrix printers used to suffice as well , but do you intend to distribute your hard work with modems and floppies ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess I don't need to ask why your sentence is in past tense.
DOS and dot matrix printers used to suffice as well, but do you intend to distribute your hard work with modems and floppies?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28682999</id>
	<title>Bloat</title>
	<author>Mr\_Silver</author>
	<datestamp>1247481120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I noticed that someone tagged this article with "bloat".</p><p>Ignoring the fact that this is not the proper way to tag an article, they really should read Joel Spolsky's excellent article "<a href="http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000020.html" title="joelonsoftware.com">Strategy Letter IV: Bloatware and the 80/20 Myth</a> [joelonsoftware.com]".</p><p>To quote (emphasis mine):</p><p> <i> <b>A lot of software developers are seduced by the old "80/20" rule.</b> It seems to make a lot of sense: 80\% of the people use 20\% of the features. So you convince yourself that you only need to implement 20\% of the features, and you can still sell 80\% as many copies.
<br> <br>
<b>Unfortunately, it's never the same 20\%.</b> Everybody uses a different set of features. In the last 10 years I have probably heard of dozens of companies who, determined not to learn from each other, tried to release "lite" word processors that only implement 20\% of the features. This story is as old as the PC. Most of the time, what happens is that they give their program to a journalist to review, and the journalist reviews it by writing their review using the new word processor, and then the journalist tries to find the "word count" feature which they need because most journalists have precise word count requirements, and it's not there, because it's in the "80\% that nobody uses," and the journalist ends up writing a story that attempts to claim simultaneously that lite programs are good, bloat is bad, and I can't use this damn thing 'cause it won't count my words.</i>
</p><p>What you consider to be bloat, many other people consider to be essential functionality.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I noticed that someone tagged this article with " bloat " .Ignoring the fact that this is not the proper way to tag an article , they really should read Joel Spolsky 's excellent article " Strategy Letter IV : Bloatware and the 80/20 Myth [ joelonsoftware.com ] " .To quote ( emphasis mine ) : A lot of software developers are seduced by the old " 80/20 " rule .
It seems to make a lot of sense : 80 \ % of the people use 20 \ % of the features .
So you convince yourself that you only need to implement 20 \ % of the features , and you can still sell 80 \ % as many copies .
Unfortunately , it 's never the same 20 \ % .
Everybody uses a different set of features .
In the last 10 years I have probably heard of dozens of companies who , determined not to learn from each other , tried to release " lite " word processors that only implement 20 \ % of the features .
This story is as old as the PC .
Most of the time , what happens is that they give their program to a journalist to review , and the journalist reviews it by writing their review using the new word processor , and then the journalist tries to find the " word count " feature which they need because most journalists have precise word count requirements , and it 's not there , because it 's in the " 80 \ % that nobody uses , " and the journalist ends up writing a story that attempts to claim simultaneously that lite programs are good , bloat is bad , and I ca n't use this damn thing 'cause it wo n't count my words .
What you consider to be bloat , many other people consider to be essential functionality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I noticed that someone tagged this article with "bloat".Ignoring the fact that this is not the proper way to tag an article, they really should read Joel Spolsky's excellent article "Strategy Letter IV: Bloatware and the 80/20 Myth [joelonsoftware.com]".To quote (emphasis mine):  A lot of software developers are seduced by the old "80/20" rule.
It seems to make a lot of sense: 80\% of the people use 20\% of the features.
So you convince yourself that you only need to implement 20\% of the features, and you can still sell 80\% as many copies.
Unfortunately, it's never the same 20\%.
Everybody uses a different set of features.
In the last 10 years I have probably heard of dozens of companies who, determined not to learn from each other, tried to release "lite" word processors that only implement 20\% of the features.
This story is as old as the PC.
Most of the time, what happens is that they give their program to a journalist to review, and the journalist reviews it by writing their review using the new word processor, and then the journalist tries to find the "word count" feature which they need because most journalists have precise word count requirements, and it's not there, because it's in the "80\% that nobody uses," and the journalist ends up writing a story that attempts to claim simultaneously that lite programs are good, bloat is bad, and I can't use this damn thing 'cause it won't count my words.
What you consider to be bloat, many other people consider to be essential functionality.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28685067</id>
	<title>Has scanning into a document been brought back?</title>
	<author>nuckfuts</author>
	<datestamp>1247493840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interface issues aside, perhaps the most surprising functional change between Office 2003 and Office 2007 was that they took away the ability to click "Insert -&gt; Picture -&gt; From Scanner or Camera". In Word 2007, it's necessary to save a scanned image as a file (outside of Word), and then locate/insert the file (within Word).</p><p>I would be pleased if I could scan into a document directly again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interface issues aside , perhaps the most surprising functional change between Office 2003 and Office 2007 was that they took away the ability to click " Insert - &gt; Picture - &gt; From Scanner or Camera " .
In Word 2007 , it 's necessary to save a scanned image as a file ( outside of Word ) , and then locate/insert the file ( within Word ) .I would be pleased if I could scan into a document directly again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interface issues aside, perhaps the most surprising functional change between Office 2003 and Office 2007 was that they took away the ability to click "Insert -&gt; Picture -&gt; From Scanner or Camera".
In Word 2007, it's necessary to save a scanned image as a file (outside of Word), and then locate/insert the file (within Word).I would be pleased if I could scan into a document directly again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28681237</id>
	<title>Killer app</title>
	<author>JediTrainer</author>
	<datestamp>1247517120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Guys, I can't say I'm a fan of MS but I have to say I think I've found the next killer app. Or at least, killer app combo.<br> <br>
OneNote 2007 plus SharePoint<br> <br>
It's like everything I've wanted in a wiki. Collaborative editing, automatic synchronization between team members, drag *anything* into it (text, emails, screenshots, files), with easy-to-use annotation. Write anywhere, on anything. It's easy to reorganize, easy to search and plain easy to use. Editing a OneNote page is just all drag+drop plus familiar Word Processor-like controls. Every Windows app can now "print" to a virtual printer device that turns anything into a OneNote page as well.<br> <br>
Bonus screen-capturing made easy (windowkey+s lets me snap anything I want from the screen into the clipboard), and a "live" mode that does the whole realtime digital whiteboard thing so I can hold meetings with remote users and we can all see what we're talking about.<br> <br>
I'll agree I hate the new UI of Office 2007. Can't stand it. And I'm not a fan of SharePoint on its own (I find it cumbersome to use). But I have to say I see big things for OneNote (on SharePoint) in the future. Once set up, the OneNote folders do all the synchronization/checkout/commits transparently while keeping my local copy working. There are a few things that could use a little bit more work (I don't like how something can only be a folder OR a folder group, and not both) but I see this as the next killer app in enterprise organizations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Guys , I ca n't say I 'm a fan of MS but I have to say I think I 've found the next killer app .
Or at least , killer app combo .
OneNote 2007 plus SharePoint It 's like everything I 've wanted in a wiki .
Collaborative editing , automatic synchronization between team members , drag * anything * into it ( text , emails , screenshots , files ) , with easy-to-use annotation .
Write anywhere , on anything .
It 's easy to reorganize , easy to search and plain easy to use .
Editing a OneNote page is just all drag + drop plus familiar Word Processor-like controls .
Every Windows app can now " print " to a virtual printer device that turns anything into a OneNote page as well .
Bonus screen-capturing made easy ( windowkey + s lets me snap anything I want from the screen into the clipboard ) , and a " live " mode that does the whole realtime digital whiteboard thing so I can hold meetings with remote users and we can all see what we 're talking about .
I 'll agree I hate the new UI of Office 2007 .
Ca n't stand it .
And I 'm not a fan of SharePoint on its own ( I find it cumbersome to use ) .
But I have to say I see big things for OneNote ( on SharePoint ) in the future .
Once set up , the OneNote folders do all the synchronization/checkout/commits transparently while keeping my local copy working .
There are a few things that could use a little bit more work ( I do n't like how something can only be a folder OR a folder group , and not both ) but I see this as the next killer app in enterprise organizations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guys, I can't say I'm a fan of MS but I have to say I think I've found the next killer app.
Or at least, killer app combo.
OneNote 2007 plus SharePoint 
It's like everything I've wanted in a wiki.
Collaborative editing, automatic synchronization between team members, drag *anything* into it (text, emails, screenshots, files), with easy-to-use annotation.
Write anywhere, on anything.
It's easy to reorganize, easy to search and plain easy to use.
Editing a OneNote page is just all drag+drop plus familiar Word Processor-like controls.
Every Windows app can now "print" to a virtual printer device that turns anything into a OneNote page as well.
Bonus screen-capturing made easy (windowkey+s lets me snap anything I want from the screen into the clipboard), and a "live" mode that does the whole realtime digital whiteboard thing so I can hold meetings with remote users and we can all see what we're talking about.
I'll agree I hate the new UI of Office 2007.
Can't stand it.
And I'm not a fan of SharePoint on its own (I find it cumbersome to use).
But I have to say I see big things for OneNote (on SharePoint) in the future.
Once set up, the OneNote folders do all the synchronization/checkout/commits transparently while keeping my local copy working.
There are a few things that could use a little bit more work (I don't like how something can only be a folder OR a folder group, and not both) but I see this as the next killer app in enterprise organizations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28690611</id>
	<title>Wait, what?</title>
	<author>geminidomino</author>
	<datestamp>1247584380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Word's picture-editing function...</p></div><p>I thought Word was a word processor...</p><p>Talk about feeping creaturism. No wonder Microsoft can't write a goddamn plaintext editor that can run in &lt; 128MB ram without crashing[0]...</p><p>[0]Yes, that's hyperbole.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Word 's picture-editing function...I thought Word was a word processor...Talk about feeping creaturism .
No wonder Microsoft ca n't write a goddamn plaintext editor that can run in [ 0 ] Yes , that 's hyperbole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Word's picture-editing function...I thought Word was a word processor...Talk about feeping creaturism.
No wonder Microsoft can't write a goddamn plaintext editor that can run in [0]Yes, that's hyperbole.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679137</id>
	<title>Re:'Conversation View' == Threaded mail?</title>
	<author>Sukhbir</author>
	<datestamp>1247509440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So you mean to say that in a way, innovation as a whole is just limited to one feature?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So you mean to say that in a way , innovation as a whole is just limited to one feature ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you mean to say that in a way, innovation as a whole is just limited to one feature?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28683211</id>
	<title>Re:'Conversation View' == Threaded mail?</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1247482080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Outlook's had Threaded View for decades. I don't exactly know what "conversation view" is, but it's something new.</p><p>But good job posting your ignorant bullshit for everybody to read. I guess it's easier to lie about what features Outlook has than to check your facts. Why do people mod up posts that *make shit up*?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Outlook 's had Threaded View for decades .
I do n't exactly know what " conversation view " is , but it 's something new.But good job posting your ignorant bullshit for everybody to read .
I guess it 's easier to lie about what features Outlook has than to check your facts .
Why do people mod up posts that * make shit up * ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Outlook's had Threaded View for decades.
I don't exactly know what "conversation view" is, but it's something new.But good job posting your ignorant bullshit for everybody to read.
I guess it's easier to lie about what features Outlook has than to check your facts.
Why do people mod up posts that *make shit up*?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679345</id>
	<title>Re:'Conversation View' == Threaded mail?</title>
	<author>PainKilleR-CE</author>
	<datestamp>1247510220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Outlook has supported threaded mail for a long time. The feature they were trying to highlight was the ability to condense the content of the thread to a single (or small number of) message when much of the content in the replies is the same (ie the previous sender's message quoted back in a reply). Therefore you could look at the top-level of the thread and possibly read the whole thread without having to go through several messages, most of which contain the previous messages quoted over and over again.</p><p>How much value this has to most users and whether or not it actually works very well I don't know, but the idea that Outlook didn't have a threaded view before this is at best laughable, especially since a quick search would tell you how to do it in the last 4 or so versions of the program.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Outlook has supported threaded mail for a long time .
The feature they were trying to highlight was the ability to condense the content of the thread to a single ( or small number of ) message when much of the content in the replies is the same ( ie the previous sender 's message quoted back in a reply ) .
Therefore you could look at the top-level of the thread and possibly read the whole thread without having to go through several messages , most of which contain the previous messages quoted over and over again.How much value this has to most users and whether or not it actually works very well I do n't know , but the idea that Outlook did n't have a threaded view before this is at best laughable , especially since a quick search would tell you how to do it in the last 4 or so versions of the program .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Outlook has supported threaded mail for a long time.
The feature they were trying to highlight was the ability to condense the content of the thread to a single (or small number of) message when much of the content in the replies is the same (ie the previous sender's message quoted back in a reply).
Therefore you could look at the top-level of the thread and possibly read the whole thread without having to go through several messages, most of which contain the previous messages quoted over and over again.How much value this has to most users and whether or not it actually works very well I don't know, but the idea that Outlook didn't have a threaded view before this is at best laughable, especially since a quick search would tell you how to do it in the last 4 or so versions of the program.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680225</id>
	<title>Will Outlook finally get proper IMAP support?</title>
	<author>gpuk</author>
	<datestamp>1247512920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where I work, our users are all happily using Office 2003 with no immediate desire to change. However, if Outlook 2010 gets proper IMAP support and Samba 4 is a bit more mature by then we'll move our whole user base over in flash as we'll finally be able to move to postfix/Samba4/LDAP and dump Exchange/AD thereby realising our dream of transitioning all of our back end to an open-source stack.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where I work , our users are all happily using Office 2003 with no immediate desire to change .
However , if Outlook 2010 gets proper IMAP support and Samba 4 is a bit more mature by then we 'll move our whole user base over in flash as we 'll finally be able to move to postfix/Samba4/LDAP and dump Exchange/AD thereby realising our dream of transitioning all of our back end to an open-source stack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where I work, our users are all happily using Office 2003 with no immediate desire to change.
However, if Outlook 2010 gets proper IMAP support and Samba 4 is a bit more mature by then we'll move our whole user base over in flash as we'll finally be able to move to postfix/Samba4/LDAP and dump Exchange/AD thereby realising our dream of transitioning all of our back end to an open-source stack.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28688287</id>
	<title>Re:A lot of effort and money</title>
	<author>xtracto</author>
	<datestamp>1247569200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>. for software that really isn't needed these days. Other than a one-off printed letter, what place does a word processing document have in today's world of Wikis and such?</p></div><p>I know you got a funny mod, but what you just said is completely out of reality.</p><p>The majority of people in several non-exact sciences (social sciences e.g.) use (1) Word, to write their articles and (2) Powerpoint to provide their presentations.</p><p>Moreover, trying to make such scientists to learn the "Wiki-language" is stupid. I am in a project where the guy in charge of IT created a "web portal" (PloneCMS) for interaction (between all the members of the project). Although he provided a wiki, forum, plone-html article(with the dead easy FCKEditor), etc. The "interaction" between researchers has been reduced to exchange of emails (sometimes with<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.DOC files) and uploading the "final" documents in PDF or DOC format.</p><p>That is the reality happening in more than 80\% (PFMAss) of the "productive" population...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>.
for software that really is n't needed these days .
Other than a one-off printed letter , what place does a word processing document have in today 's world of Wikis and such ? I know you got a funny mod , but what you just said is completely out of reality.The majority of people in several non-exact sciences ( social sciences e.g .
) use ( 1 ) Word , to write their articles and ( 2 ) Powerpoint to provide their presentations.Moreover , trying to make such scientists to learn the " Wiki-language " is stupid .
I am in a project where the guy in charge of IT created a " web portal " ( PloneCMS ) for interaction ( between all the members of the project ) .
Although he provided a wiki , forum , plone-html article ( with the dead easy FCKEditor ) , etc .
The " interaction " between researchers has been reduced to exchange of emails ( sometimes with .DOC files ) and uploading the " final " documents in PDF or DOC format.That is the reality happening in more than 80 \ % ( PFMAss ) of the " productive " population.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
for software that really isn't needed these days.
Other than a one-off printed letter, what place does a word processing document have in today's world of Wikis and such?I know you got a funny mod, but what you just said is completely out of reality.The majority of people in several non-exact sciences (social sciences e.g.
) use (1) Word, to write their articles and (2) Powerpoint to provide their presentations.Moreover, trying to make such scientists to learn the "Wiki-language" is stupid.
I am in a project where the guy in charge of IT created a "web portal" (PloneCMS) for interaction (between all the members of the project).
Although he provided a wiki, forum, plone-html article(with the dead easy FCKEditor), etc.
The "interaction" between researchers has been reduced to exchange of emails (sometimes with .DOC files) and uploading the "final" documents in PDF or DOC format.That is the reality happening in more than 80\% (PFMAss) of the "productive" population...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28681807</id>
	<title>Re:ODF</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247476140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft's version of ODF is no ODF. It does not respect sections 8.1 and 8.3 of the ODF 1.1 specs, although MS claims it is 100\% pure ODF power.</p><p>(source: www.fuckinggoogleit.com)</p><p>would you expect anything other from MS?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft 's version of ODF is no ODF .
It does not respect sections 8.1 and 8.3 of the ODF 1.1 specs , although MS claims it is 100 \ % pure ODF power .
( source : www.fuckinggoogleit.com ) would you expect anything other from MS ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft's version of ODF is no ODF.
It does not respect sections 8.1 and 8.3 of the ODF 1.1 specs, although MS claims it is 100\% pure ODF power.
(source: www.fuckinggoogleit.com)would you expect anything other from MS?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28682941</id>
	<title>Re:Good Enough</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1247480880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right, but there's one other important thing about Microsoft you have to realize:</p><p>When they have no competition, they don't bother. When Microsoft's web browser competition dissolved away, we ended up with IE6 for years and years and years-- when the web browser competition picked-up again, thanks to Mozilla and Apple and later Google, suddenly, WHAM! IE7, IE8, back to a regular development schedule, tons of great features.</p><p>Office moves slow because it has very little serious competition. And, hell, even at Office's slow pace, it's out-pacing OpenOffice. So they must be doing something right. Now, if Apple ported Pages/Numbers to Windows, and Adobe released OfficeShop, then you'd see Microsoft moving-ass on getting Office up-to-snuff. As is, why should they bother?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right , but there 's one other important thing about Microsoft you have to realize : When they have no competition , they do n't bother .
When Microsoft 's web browser competition dissolved away , we ended up with IE6 for years and years and years-- when the web browser competition picked-up again , thanks to Mozilla and Apple and later Google , suddenly , WHAM !
IE7 , IE8 , back to a regular development schedule , tons of great features.Office moves slow because it has very little serious competition .
And , hell , even at Office 's slow pace , it 's out-pacing OpenOffice .
So they must be doing something right .
Now , if Apple ported Pages/Numbers to Windows , and Adobe released OfficeShop , then you 'd see Microsoft moving-ass on getting Office up-to-snuff .
As is , why should they bother ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right, but there's one other important thing about Microsoft you have to realize:When they have no competition, they don't bother.
When Microsoft's web browser competition dissolved away, we ended up with IE6 for years and years and years-- when the web browser competition picked-up again, thanks to Mozilla and Apple and later Google, suddenly, WHAM!
IE7, IE8, back to a regular development schedule, tons of great features.Office moves slow because it has very little serious competition.
And, hell, even at Office's slow pace, it's out-pacing OpenOffice.
So they must be doing something right.
Now, if Apple ported Pages/Numbers to Windows, and Adobe released OfficeShop, then you'd see Microsoft moving-ass on getting Office up-to-snuff.
As is, why should they bother?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28685081</id>
	<title>Oops, it's starting to look like Lotus Notes</title>
	<author>1mck</author>
	<datestamp>1247493900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Their tool bars are becoming much like Lotus Notes. I had to use it at my last job, and it was bewildering to say the very least! Of course, I had no formal training on it, but it should be intuitive...right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Their tool bars are becoming much like Lotus Notes .
I had to use it at my last job , and it was bewildering to say the very least !
Of course , I had no formal training on it , but it should be intuitive...right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their tool bars are becoming much like Lotus Notes.
I had to use it at my last job, and it was bewildering to say the very least!
Of course, I had no formal training on it, but it should be intuitive...right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28684835</id>
	<title>I like Office 2007, but I don't like it too.</title>
	<author>DimmO</author>
	<datestamp>1247492040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>here's some "features" in Office 2007 that I hope they fix:<br>
1. in the Outlook 2007 journal, document edits are not logged if the document is stored on a network drive.<br>
99\% of my work documents are on a network server.  When i go to fill in my weekly time sheet (so I can get paid), I go to the journal to review what my work was, and there's nothing there! (inb4 you didn't do any work) <br>
2a. Copying a spreadsheet chart from excel to word can not be done by drag-and-drop.  <br>
2b. copy / pasting a chart from excel to word pastes it as a vector image.  a) you can not edit the chart as a OLE object in the word document, and b) text formatting on the axes gets screwed up.<br>
<br>
I *do* like the ribbon interface and the context formatting menu that pops up when you select text.</htmltext>
<tokenext>here 's some " features " in Office 2007 that I hope they fix : 1. in the Outlook 2007 journal , document edits are not logged if the document is stored on a network drive .
99 \ % of my work documents are on a network server .
When i go to fill in my weekly time sheet ( so I can get paid ) , I go to the journal to review what my work was , and there 's nothing there !
( inb4 you did n't do any work ) 2a .
Copying a spreadsheet chart from excel to word can not be done by drag-and-drop .
2b. copy / pasting a chart from excel to word pastes it as a vector image .
a ) you can not edit the chart as a OLE object in the word document , and b ) text formatting on the axes gets screwed up .
I * do * like the ribbon interface and the context formatting menu that pops up when you select text .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>here's some "features" in Office 2007 that I hope they fix:
1. in the Outlook 2007 journal, document edits are not logged if the document is stored on a network drive.
99\% of my work documents are on a network server.
When i go to fill in my weekly time sheet (so I can get paid), I go to the journal to review what my work was, and there's nothing there!
(inb4 you didn't do any work) 
2a.
Copying a spreadsheet chart from excel to word can not be done by drag-and-drop.
2b. copy / pasting a chart from excel to word pastes it as a vector image.
a) you can not edit the chart as a OLE object in the word document, and b) text formatting on the axes gets screwed up.
I *do* like the ribbon interface and the context formatting menu that pops up when you select text.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679619</id>
	<title>oo, ms formats</title>
	<author>drougie</author>
	<datestamp>1247510880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know this wouldn't be too helpful to openoffice and the FOSS world in general in terms of getting a leg up on native format overlords but it would help me not just deploy it in a large office by saving myself some clicks as I'm running around installing it but it would also enable me to hand out a CD to someone with an openoffice installation on it if I could somehow modify it to set the default save formats to Microsoft's. I also realize there's a risk such users should know, that they may lose certain formatting in doing this (and maybe I'd want to encourage them to crank out PDFs on final drafts), but most people just don't have the technical acumen to change these settings themselves and would have little interest in an editor that would only save a new document in an MS format if they went out of their way to specify it each time. Being able to double click an icon, type something, hit save and email to someone else who will then be able to open it with or without openoffice without having to do any extra steps would be a strong selling point.<br>
&nbsp; <br>So is there any way, a simple way without having to sift through all the source code, to modify some kind of openoffice installer to use ms formats by default? Maybe something like this exists already?<br>
&nbsp; <br>Ideally MS would be kind enough to support oo formats... <br>
&nbsp; <br>While I'm posting here's a link for <a href="http://corefonts.sourceforge.net/" title="sourceforge.net" rel="nofollow">MS fonts</a> [sourceforge.net] and another for <a href="http://www.oooninja.com/2008/01/calibri-linux-vista-fonts-download.html" title="oooninja.com" rel="nofollow">Vista fonts</a> [oooninja.com] for OO, works on all platforms OO works on according to what I found on google just now. Oh yeah, and back to my question, how about modifying an installer package to toss in fonts like this? Again, dealing with people who can barely click through a simple installation, not people who know where to find the basic settings of this kind of software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know this would n't be too helpful to openoffice and the FOSS world in general in terms of getting a leg up on native format overlords but it would help me not just deploy it in a large office by saving myself some clicks as I 'm running around installing it but it would also enable me to hand out a CD to someone with an openoffice installation on it if I could somehow modify it to set the default save formats to Microsoft 's .
I also realize there 's a risk such users should know , that they may lose certain formatting in doing this ( and maybe I 'd want to encourage them to crank out PDFs on final drafts ) , but most people just do n't have the technical acumen to change these settings themselves and would have little interest in an editor that would only save a new document in an MS format if they went out of their way to specify it each time .
Being able to double click an icon , type something , hit save and email to someone else who will then be able to open it with or without openoffice without having to do any extra steps would be a strong selling point .
  So is there any way , a simple way without having to sift through all the source code , to modify some kind of openoffice installer to use ms formats by default ?
Maybe something like this exists already ?
  Ideally MS would be kind enough to support oo formats.. .   While I 'm posting here 's a link for MS fonts [ sourceforge.net ] and another for Vista fonts [ oooninja.com ] for OO , works on all platforms OO works on according to what I found on google just now .
Oh yeah , and back to my question , how about modifying an installer package to toss in fonts like this ?
Again , dealing with people who can barely click through a simple installation , not people who know where to find the basic settings of this kind of software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know this wouldn't be too helpful to openoffice and the FOSS world in general in terms of getting a leg up on native format overlords but it would help me not just deploy it in a large office by saving myself some clicks as I'm running around installing it but it would also enable me to hand out a CD to someone with an openoffice installation on it if I could somehow modify it to set the default save formats to Microsoft's.
I also realize there's a risk such users should know, that they may lose certain formatting in doing this (and maybe I'd want to encourage them to crank out PDFs on final drafts), but most people just don't have the technical acumen to change these settings themselves and would have little interest in an editor that would only save a new document in an MS format if they went out of their way to specify it each time.
Being able to double click an icon, type something, hit save and email to someone else who will then be able to open it with or without openoffice without having to do any extra steps would be a strong selling point.
  So is there any way, a simple way without having to sift through all the source code, to modify some kind of openoffice installer to use ms formats by default?
Maybe something like this exists already?
  Ideally MS would be kind enough to support oo formats... 
  While I'm posting here's a link for MS fonts [sourceforge.net] and another for Vista fonts [oooninja.com] for OO, works on all platforms OO works on according to what I found on google just now.
Oh yeah, and back to my question, how about modifying an installer package to toss in fonts like this?
Again, dealing with people who can barely click through a simple installation, not people who know where to find the basic settings of this kind of software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28682537</id>
	<title>Half-assery</title>
	<author>Orne</author>
	<datestamp>1247479200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Our company rolled out an upgrade from Microsoft Windows 2000 + Office 2002 to Vista + Office 2007 last fall.  Needless to say, it was not exactly the smoothest of transitions... so we have the Ribbon, which is creating a polarizing user experiences between new and old users.  Powerusers in Excel are completely exasperated, filled with hate towards MS and actually asking for Office XP downgrades just so they can get the toolbars back.  It now takes 4 clicks to do things that used to be 1 click, or none because the keyboard commands were actually stable and not tab sensitive...</p><p>Personally, I'm coping with it, because I don't have an option.  So, embracing the ribbon, it's bugging the heck out of me because the whole damn thing is anti-intuitive:</p><ul> <li>Why is Row and Column Insert on the Home menu, and not the Insert menu?</li><li>Table creation is on the Home tab, and not on the Insert tab Table section, unless you actually want to manipulate the table, in which case commands are on the Data tab</li><li>I click on a Table, and I get a context sensitive tab, to recolor it, but not to sort or filter?  No, those commands are in a right-click contect menu of the Table.  At least you can get the traditional cross-tab format back by going into the context menu.</li><li>I use PivotTables all the time.  They used to be on the Data menu, since you are processing data, but now they are on the Insert tab.</li><li>Right-click and Format a cell, and the window is Tabs options across the top.  Right-click on a chart and Format an axis, and Tabs are on the left going down.</li><li>Number Formatting for cells:  Right-click a cell, click the Number tab; or use the Home tab Number section.  You can type in the combo box in the Home tab, but don't actually enter a Custom formatting string here, because it won't work; that only works when you use the right-click menu.</li><li>Number Formatting for charts: Right-click an axis, click the Number tab, and it looks the same as cell formatting -- BUT unlike all the rest of the menu options that are applied immediately (notice no [Apply] button here), number formatting doesn't apply until you hit the [Add] button.  Oh, and don't think about using the Home tab Number section on a chart, it won't work, even though you are applying the exact same formatting</li><li>Oh, and why do I have to go to Google to figure out how to un-break a Surface Chart being used as a top-down contour map?  Surface Charts now automatically have a 3D shadow style applied by default, which makes the top-down look like crap.  Each series, you now have to click 3-D Format -&gt; Surface -&gt; Lighting -&gt; Flat</li><li>Style and Line Coloring, very nice, until you try to use an Excel chart in PowerPoint or Word, and it recolors all of your data with the new application's Style, even if you changed the line and fill colors.</li></ul><p>Thank you Microsoft, for helping me where I didn't know I needed help.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Our company rolled out an upgrade from Microsoft Windows 2000 + Office 2002 to Vista + Office 2007 last fall .
Needless to say , it was not exactly the smoothest of transitions... so we have the Ribbon , which is creating a polarizing user experiences between new and old users .
Powerusers in Excel are completely exasperated , filled with hate towards MS and actually asking for Office XP downgrades just so they can get the toolbars back .
It now takes 4 clicks to do things that used to be 1 click , or none because the keyboard commands were actually stable and not tab sensitive...Personally , I 'm coping with it , because I do n't have an option .
So , embracing the ribbon , it 's bugging the heck out of me because the whole damn thing is anti-intuitive : Why is Row and Column Insert on the Home menu , and not the Insert menu ? Table creation is on the Home tab , and not on the Insert tab Table section , unless you actually want to manipulate the table , in which case commands are on the Data tabI click on a Table , and I get a context sensitive tab , to recolor it , but not to sort or filter ?
No , those commands are in a right-click contect menu of the Table .
At least you can get the traditional cross-tab format back by going into the context menu.I use PivotTables all the time .
They used to be on the Data menu , since you are processing data , but now they are on the Insert tab.Right-click and Format a cell , and the window is Tabs options across the top .
Right-click on a chart and Format an axis , and Tabs are on the left going down.Number Formatting for cells : Right-click a cell , click the Number tab ; or use the Home tab Number section .
You can type in the combo box in the Home tab , but do n't actually enter a Custom formatting string here , because it wo n't work ; that only works when you use the right-click menu.Number Formatting for charts : Right-click an axis , click the Number tab , and it looks the same as cell formatting -- BUT unlike all the rest of the menu options that are applied immediately ( notice no [ Apply ] button here ) , number formatting does n't apply until you hit the [ Add ] button .
Oh , and do n't think about using the Home tab Number section on a chart , it wo n't work , even though you are applying the exact same formattingOh , and why do I have to go to Google to figure out how to un-break a Surface Chart being used as a top-down contour map ?
Surface Charts now automatically have a 3D shadow style applied by default , which makes the top-down look like crap .
Each series , you now have to click 3-D Format - &gt; Surface - &gt; Lighting - &gt; FlatStyle and Line Coloring , very nice , until you try to use an Excel chart in PowerPoint or Word , and it recolors all of your data with the new application 's Style , even if you changed the line and fill colors.Thank you Microsoft , for helping me where I did n't know I needed help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our company rolled out an upgrade from Microsoft Windows 2000 + Office 2002 to Vista + Office 2007 last fall.
Needless to say, it was not exactly the smoothest of transitions... so we have the Ribbon, which is creating a polarizing user experiences between new and old users.
Powerusers in Excel are completely exasperated, filled with hate towards MS and actually asking for Office XP downgrades just so they can get the toolbars back.
It now takes 4 clicks to do things that used to be 1 click, or none because the keyboard commands were actually stable and not tab sensitive...Personally, I'm coping with it, because I don't have an option.
So, embracing the ribbon, it's bugging the heck out of me because the whole damn thing is anti-intuitive: Why is Row and Column Insert on the Home menu, and not the Insert menu?Table creation is on the Home tab, and not on the Insert tab Table section, unless you actually want to manipulate the table, in which case commands are on the Data tabI click on a Table, and I get a context sensitive tab, to recolor it, but not to sort or filter?
No, those commands are in a right-click contect menu of the Table.
At least you can get the traditional cross-tab format back by going into the context menu.I use PivotTables all the time.
They used to be on the Data menu, since you are processing data, but now they are on the Insert tab.Right-click and Format a cell, and the window is Tabs options across the top.
Right-click on a chart and Format an axis, and Tabs are on the left going down.Number Formatting for cells:  Right-click a cell, click the Number tab; or use the Home tab Number section.
You can type in the combo box in the Home tab, but don't actually enter a Custom formatting string here, because it won't work; that only works when you use the right-click menu.Number Formatting for charts: Right-click an axis, click the Number tab, and it looks the same as cell formatting -- BUT unlike all the rest of the menu options that are applied immediately (notice no [Apply] button here), number formatting doesn't apply until you hit the [Add] button.
Oh, and don't think about using the Home tab Number section on a chart, it won't work, even though you are applying the exact same formattingOh, and why do I have to go to Google to figure out how to un-break a Surface Chart being used as a top-down contour map?
Surface Charts now automatically have a 3D shadow style applied by default, which makes the top-down look like crap.
Each series, you now have to click 3-D Format -&gt; Surface -&gt; Lighting -&gt; FlatStyle and Line Coloring, very nice, until you try to use an Excel chart in PowerPoint or Word, and it recolors all of your data with the new application's Style, even if you changed the line and fill colors.Thank you Microsoft, for helping me where I didn't know I needed help.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679655</id>
	<title>Re:Not so surprising</title>
	<author>abigsmurf</author>
	<datestamp>1247511060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is anyone else thinking that we may not have seen Chrome OS if it hadn't been for the upcoming release of Windows 7, twisting Googles's arm into announcing something, anything at all?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is anyone else thinking that we may not have seen Chrome OS if it had n't been for the upcoming release of Windows 7 , twisting Googles 's arm into announcing something , anything at all ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is anyone else thinking that we may not have seen Chrome OS if it hadn't been for the upcoming release of Windows 7, twisting Googles's arm into announcing something, anything at all?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680087</id>
	<title>Re:Three Reasons to Hate the Ribbon</title>
	<author>man\_of\_mr\_e</author>
	<datestamp>1247512380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) You can make the ribbon go away by a single mouse click or hotkey.</p><p>2) No, it changes based on what you are ACTUALLY doing.  If you click on an image, it gives you image editing tools.  If you click in a table, it gives you table tools.  It's context, not telepathy.</p><p>3) Microsoft has learned (the hard way) that if you give people the option to go back to the old, they will never learn the new.  Thus you are stuck supporting the old for life.  The only way is a clean break.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) You can make the ribbon go away by a single mouse click or hotkey.2 ) No , it changes based on what you are ACTUALLY doing .
If you click on an image , it gives you image editing tools .
If you click in a table , it gives you table tools .
It 's context , not telepathy.3 ) Microsoft has learned ( the hard way ) that if you give people the option to go back to the old , they will never learn the new .
Thus you are stuck supporting the old for life .
The only way is a clean break .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) You can make the ribbon go away by a single mouse click or hotkey.2) No, it changes based on what you are ACTUALLY doing.
If you click on an image, it gives you image editing tools.
If you click in a table, it gives you table tools.
It's context, not telepathy.3) Microsoft has learned (the hard way) that if you give people the option to go back to the old, they will never learn the new.
Thus you are stuck supporting the old for life.
The only way is a clean break.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678591</id>
	<title>Office on Linux?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247507700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if the online version will support firefox (specifically on non-windows OS's)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if the online version will support firefox ( specifically on non-windows OS 's ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if the online version will support firefox (specifically on non-windows OS's)?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679021</id>
	<title>Re:'Conversation View' == Threaded mail?</title>
	<author>bheer</author>
	<datestamp>1247509020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Threaded mail has been in Outlook since at least Outlook 2000. Conversation view is more like Gmail's "threads".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Threaded mail has been in Outlook since at least Outlook 2000 .
Conversation view is more like Gmail 's " threads " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Threaded mail has been in Outlook since at least Outlook 2000.
Conversation view is more like Gmail's "threads".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679785</id>
	<title>Re:ODF</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247511420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>not as good or as fast as cutePDF works.</p><p>Plus I can print to pdf from any program.. Extra BONUS!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>not as good or as fast as cutePDF works.Plus I can print to pdf from any program.. Extra BONUS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not as good or as fast as cutePDF works.Plus I can print to pdf from any program.. Extra BONUS!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679935</id>
	<title>There's more to Office than the Ribbon</title>
	<author>Toreo asesino</author>
	<datestamp>1247511900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...but you wouldn't think so looking through some of these comments. Office works real well with MOSS (Paid version of SharePoint); which works real nice on a Active Directory and SQL Server; which is only realistic on Windows Server. When I say works well, I mean your grandmother could get it running.</p><p>Office on it's own is missing the point really; documents should never stay on just one machine.</p><p>Welcome to the wonderful world of Office.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...but you would n't think so looking through some of these comments .
Office works real well with MOSS ( Paid version of SharePoint ) ; which works real nice on a Active Directory and SQL Server ; which is only realistic on Windows Server .
When I say works well , I mean your grandmother could get it running.Office on it 's own is missing the point really ; documents should never stay on just one machine.Welcome to the wonderful world of Office .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but you wouldn't think so looking through some of these comments.
Office works real well with MOSS (Paid version of SharePoint); which works real nice on a Active Directory and SQL Server; which is only realistic on Windows Server.
When I say works well, I mean your grandmother could get it running.Office on it's own is missing the point really; documents should never stay on just one machine.Welcome to the wonderful world of Office.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678699</id>
	<title>Memo to Microsoft: Leave it alone</title>
	<author>93 Escort Wagon</author>
	<datestamp>1247508060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Word's been around, what, 20 years? Guys, if you want to provide maximum usability to use users, <i>leave it alone</i>. We've all figured out how the app works, what the keyboard shortcuts are, where in each menu our most-used commands are, and how to use mail merge. STOP CHANGING IT. Every time you change how Word works, all you're doing is <i>decreasing</i> my usability and needlessly taking away time I could otherwise spend doing actual productive work.</p><p>Full disclosure: I've been trying to avoid Office for the past year or so, relying on Apple's Pages instead - in part simply because Word is a bloated beast, and in part because Microsoft just keeps pointlessly adding useless crap and changing things to give the illusion of "innovation".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Word 's been around , what , 20 years ?
Guys , if you want to provide maximum usability to use users , leave it alone .
We 've all figured out how the app works , what the keyboard shortcuts are , where in each menu our most-used commands are , and how to use mail merge .
STOP CHANGING IT .
Every time you change how Word works , all you 're doing is decreasing my usability and needlessly taking away time I could otherwise spend doing actual productive work.Full disclosure : I 've been trying to avoid Office for the past year or so , relying on Apple 's Pages instead - in part simply because Word is a bloated beast , and in part because Microsoft just keeps pointlessly adding useless crap and changing things to give the illusion of " innovation " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Word's been around, what, 20 years?
Guys, if you want to provide maximum usability to use users, leave it alone.
We've all figured out how the app works, what the keyboard shortcuts are, where in each menu our most-used commands are, and how to use mail merge.
STOP CHANGING IT.
Every time you change how Word works, all you're doing is decreasing my usability and needlessly taking away time I could otherwise spend doing actual productive work.Full disclosure: I've been trying to avoid Office for the past year or so, relying on Apple's Pages instead - in part simply because Word is a bloated beast, and in part because Microsoft just keeps pointlessly adding useless crap and changing things to give the illusion of "innovation".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28682755</id>
	<title>Re:Yawn...</title>
	<author>heffrey</author>
	<datestamp>1247480100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess some of the half a billion people with Office installations may take more than a passing interest....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess some of the half a billion people with Office installations may take more than a passing interest... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess some of the half a billion people with Office installations may take more than a passing interest....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679775</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678923</id>
	<title>Re:A lot of effort and money</title>
	<author>Freetardo Jones</author>
	<datestamp>1247508720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Other than a one-off printed letter, what place does a word processing document have in today's world of Wikis and such?</p></div><p>You mean other than for writing novels, papers and articles?  Yeah, other than major stuff like that, I can see no use for a word processor at all.  Last time I checked my professor or your editor isn't going to accept a wiki page as a way to turn in your writing to.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Other than a one-off printed letter , what place does a word processing document have in today 's world of Wikis and such ? You mean other than for writing novels , papers and articles ?
Yeah , other than major stuff like that , I can see no use for a word processor at all .
Last time I checked my professor or your editor is n't going to accept a wiki page as a way to turn in your writing to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Other than a one-off printed letter, what place does a word processing document have in today's world of Wikis and such?You mean other than for writing novels, papers and articles?
Yeah, other than major stuff like that, I can see no use for a word processor at all.
Last time I checked my professor or your editor isn't going to accept a wiki page as a way to turn in your writing to.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28681351</id>
	<title>Re:First Question</title>
	<author>kamakiri</author>
	<datestamp>1247517660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://blogs.technet.com/office2010/archive/2009/05/11/office-2010-hello-world.aspx" title="technet.com" rel="nofollow">yes</a> [technet.com]

Office 2010 will run on Windows XP SP3, Windows Vista, and Windows 7.</htmltext>
<tokenext>yes [ technet.com ] Office 2010 will run on Windows XP SP3 , Windows Vista , and Windows 7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yes [technet.com]

Office 2010 will run on Windows XP SP3, Windows Vista, and Windows 7.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679349</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680237</id>
	<title>Can it be any worse than Office 2007?</title>
	<author>KoshClassic</author>
	<datestamp>1247512920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IMHO, Office 2007 was such a gigantic leap backwards in terms of its UI, that any "progress" towards "increased usability" this time out I fear will be in the wrong direction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IMHO , Office 2007 was such a gigantic leap backwards in terms of its UI , that any " progress " towards " increased usability " this time out I fear will be in the wrong direction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IMHO, Office 2007 was such a gigantic leap backwards in terms of its UI, that any "progress" towards "increased usability" this time out I fear will be in the wrong direction.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679929</id>
	<title>Re:The last good version of Microsoft Word</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1247511900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Problem is that Office 2010 now has the Xbox Achievements system...</p><p>"Achievement, you found the file menu function +10gp"</p><p>Oh using Office 2010 will require a Office Live gold account or higher.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Problem is that Office 2010 now has the Xbox Achievements system... " Achievement , you found the file menu function + 10gp " Oh using Office 2010 will require a Office Live gold account or higher .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Problem is that Office 2010 now has the Xbox Achievements system..."Achievement, you found the file menu function +10gp"Oh using Office 2010 will require a Office Live gold account or higher.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678913</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28681373</id>
	<title>Good Enough, is.</title>
	<author>PeanutButterBreath</author>
	<datestamp>1247517720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good enough is often as close as you are going to get for a massive user base.</p><p>Also, I see that you don't even credit any of the "competition" for rising to the the lowly standard you castigate Microsoft for settling on.</p><p>"I'll see your crappy 'good enough' Office and raise you with my 'very useable' Open Office".  LOL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good enough is often as close as you are going to get for a massive user base.Also , I see that you do n't even credit any of the " competition " for rising to the the lowly standard you castigate Microsoft for settling on .
" I 'll see your crappy 'good enough ' Office and raise you with my 'very useable ' Open Office " .
LOL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good enough is often as close as you are going to get for a massive user base.Also, I see that you don't even credit any of the "competition" for rising to the the lowly standard you castigate Microsoft for settling on.
"I'll see your crappy 'good enough' Office and raise you with my 'very useable' Open Office".
LOL</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678981</id>
	<title>Re:A lot of effort and money</title>
	<author>aristotle-dude</author>
	<datestamp>1247508900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>... for software that really isn't needed these days.  Other than a one-off printed letter, what place does a word processing document have in today's world of Wikis and such?  Same with spreadsheets.  Great for high school and college labs, and quick what-if stuff, but outside of that, should they really be used (don't get me started on the number of spreadsheet 'databases' or printable tables are out there).</p></div><p>Wikis? Are you on crack. Wikis are not only often disorganized but they are also the epitome of poor usability. They do have their place but they are not a replacement properly rewritten and organized documentation. Wikis are a fad like twitter and will be forgotten in a few years.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... for software that really is n't needed these days .
Other than a one-off printed letter , what place does a word processing document have in today 's world of Wikis and such ?
Same with spreadsheets .
Great for high school and college labs , and quick what-if stuff , but outside of that , should they really be used ( do n't get me started on the number of spreadsheet 'databases ' or printable tables are out there ) .Wikis ?
Are you on crack .
Wikis are not only often disorganized but they are also the epitome of poor usability .
They do have their place but they are not a replacement properly rewritten and organized documentation .
Wikis are a fad like twitter and will be forgotten in a few years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... for software that really isn't needed these days.
Other than a one-off printed letter, what place does a word processing document have in today's world of Wikis and such?
Same with spreadsheets.
Great for high school and college labs, and quick what-if stuff, but outside of that, should they really be used (don't get me started on the number of spreadsheet 'databases' or printable tables are out there).Wikis?
Are you on crack.
Wikis are not only often disorganized but they are also the epitome of poor usability.
They do have their place but they are not a replacement properly rewritten and organized documentation.
Wikis are a fad like twitter and will be forgotten in a few years.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678927</id>
	<title>Office productivity suites...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247508720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People still pay for these?</p><p>I mean, really?  Just as Microsoft killed the ability for anyone to make money selling web browsers, didn't Open Office et al do the same?  The last<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... three companies I've worked for all use Open Office.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People still pay for these ? I mean , really ?
Just as Microsoft killed the ability for anyone to make money selling web browsers , did n't Open Office et al do the same ?
The last ... three companies I 've worked for all use Open Office .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People still pay for these?I mean, really?
Just as Microsoft killed the ability for anyone to make money selling web browsers, didn't Open Office et al do the same?
The last ... three companies I've worked for all use Open Office.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28681177</id>
	<title>Re:'Conversation View' == Threaded mail?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247516880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Note all of your examples are pre 2000 and gmail doesn't use it either.  If it was such an awesome idea why didn't it continue to be used?  The main reason is that how email is used changed and continues to change.  People now recieve such a volume of email that this is now fast becoming mandatory just to keep track of the information flow and it will probably become something I expect google to adopt as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Note all of your examples are pre 2000 and gmail does n't use it either .
If it was such an awesome idea why did n't it continue to be used ?
The main reason is that how email is used changed and continues to change .
People now recieve such a volume of email that this is now fast becoming mandatory just to keep track of the information flow and it will probably become something I expect google to adopt as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note all of your examples are pre 2000 and gmail doesn't use it either.
If it was such an awesome idea why didn't it continue to be used?
The main reason is that how email is used changed and continues to change.
People now recieve such a volume of email that this is now fast becoming mandatory just to keep track of the information flow and it will probably become something I expect google to adopt as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680115</id>
	<title>Re:WordPerfect 5.1</title>
	<author>Nom du Keyboard</author>
	<datestamp>1247512560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I could have been happy using WordPerfect 5.1 for the rest of my life</p></div></blockquote><p>
I will second that. Especially because Reveal Codes was so much faster for fixing formatting problems than Word to this day. There are times in Word some piece of formatting garbage gets so stuck in place that I have to delete entire paragraphs and repast the text as Paste Special Unformatted Text.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I could have been happy using WordPerfect 5.1 for the rest of my life I will second that .
Especially because Reveal Codes was so much faster for fixing formatting problems than Word to this day .
There are times in Word some piece of formatting garbage gets so stuck in place that I have to delete entire paragraphs and repast the text as Paste Special Unformatted Text .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I could have been happy using WordPerfect 5.1 for the rest of my life
I will second that.
Especially because Reveal Codes was so much faster for fixing formatting problems than Word to this day.
There are times in Word some piece of formatting garbage gets so stuck in place that I have to delete entire paragraphs and repast the text as Paste Special Unformatted Text.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678795</id>
	<title>A lot of effort and money</title>
	<author>SCHecklerX</author>
	<datestamp>1247508300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... for software that really isn't needed these days.  Other than a one-off printed letter, what place does a word processing document have in today's world of Wikis and such?  Same with spreadsheets.  Great for high school and college labs, and quick what-if stuff, but outside of that, should they really be used (don't get me started on the number of spreadsheet 'databases' or printable tables are out there).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... for software that really is n't needed these days .
Other than a one-off printed letter , what place does a word processing document have in today 's world of Wikis and such ?
Same with spreadsheets .
Great for high school and college labs , and quick what-if stuff , but outside of that , should they really be used ( do n't get me started on the number of spreadsheet 'databases ' or printable tables are out there ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... for software that really isn't needed these days.
Other than a one-off printed letter, what place does a word processing document have in today's world of Wikis and such?
Same with spreadsheets.
Great for high school and college labs, and quick what-if stuff, but outside of that, should they really be used (don't get me started on the number of spreadsheet 'databases' or printable tables are out there).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28682959</id>
	<title>Re:ODF</title>
	<author>BenoitRen</author>
	<datestamp>1247480940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What makes Microsoft's version of ODF any worse than anyone elses?</p></div> </blockquote><p>Did you even bother to read the linked PDF that the grandparent posted along with his point?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What makes Microsoft 's version of ODF any worse than anyone elses ?
Did you even bother to read the linked PDF that the grandparent posted along with his point ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What makes Microsoft's version of ODF any worse than anyone elses?
Did you even bother to read the linked PDF that the grandparent posted along with his point?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28682015</id>
	<title>What makes it worse is it isn't compatible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247477040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most vendors of editors which save and open ODF files are compatible. Only Microsoft, the best funded software corporation by far, famed for extending standards to suit itself, implemented only the version 1.0 of ODF. Why did they do that? To adhere to standards maybe. Possibly, but I think it is more likely to make their rivals files unreadable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most vendors of editors which save and open ODF files are compatible .
Only Microsoft , the best funded software corporation by far , famed for extending standards to suit itself , implemented only the version 1.0 of ODF .
Why did they do that ?
To adhere to standards maybe .
Possibly , but I think it is more likely to make their rivals files unreadable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most vendors of editors which save and open ODF files are compatible.
Only Microsoft, the best funded software corporation by far, famed for extending standards to suit itself, implemented only the version 1.0 of ODF.
Why did they do that?
To adhere to standards maybe.
Possibly, but I think it is more likely to make their rivals files unreadable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680129</id>
	<title>Re:First Question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247512620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>no it wouldnt, remember halo 2 being tied to dx10?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no it wouldnt , remember halo 2 being tied to dx10 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no it wouldnt, remember halo 2 being tied to dx10?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679349</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678725</id>
	<title>Eric Raymond</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247508120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eric felt his scrotum contract in its latest desperate attempt to keep his testicles warm. This hospital, wherever it was, was damned drafty.</p><p>It didn't help that the nurses on his floor, who had been treating Eric like a complete bitch, liked to keep the air conditioning cranked up. Or was it just his room? He noticed they pulled their cardigans and sweaters around them only when they came to see him.</p><p>"Nurse! Nurse!" Eric shouted. "Excuse me, nurse?!"</p><p>Eric heard a chair creak, followed by footsteps coming down the hall. They were quick around here, one of the only good things Eric had yet noticed. Perhaps it was because of his celebrity status.</p><p>"Yes?" the nurse said, crossing her goose-pimpled arms.</p><p>"Nurse, it's damn cold in here," Eric said. "And I think my pain medication is wearing off. Can I have some more pills?"</p><p>Her beady eyes, set atop wrinkled, puffy cheeks, lasered him in his bed. This was the sixth time Eric had shouted for her since her shift began. She didn't know him well but she was definitely starting to hate him.</p><p>"Oh! And my urinal needs emptied!" Eric added.</p><p>The nurse pursed her lips and folded her arms without breaking eye contact, "get fucked" in body language.</p><p>Eric smiled a crooked, leering grin at her and winked in a bid to charm her into emptying his piss. The nurse wondered if he was about to have another seizure.</p><p>She picked up Eric's chart, flipped through it, and replaced it.</p><p>"Mr. Raymond," the nurse said, "you're not due for more pain medication for two more hours."</p><p>Eric's mustache, orange and drooping, twitched.</p><p>"Do you need your bandages looked at?"</p><p>Eric shifted in his bed, stiff and uncomfortable. He slowly, awkwardly, stretched his hospital gown down over his knees.</p><p>"Nooo, no, no I don't," Eric said. "My bandages are just fine."</p><p>"Fine then," the nurse said. "I'll get your urinal. Do you need anything else?"</p><p>Eric watched as the nurse lifted his urinal carefully off of his lunch tray. It was completely full1,000 cubic centimeters, one full quart of piss and mounding at the top.</p><p>The nurse stifled a gag as she slowly made her way into the restroom.</p><p>"This damn IV has me swimming!" Eric called after her with a quick laugh.</p><p>He heard her pouring his urine into the toilet and felt the urge to go again. It had been dark brown, viscous, and smelled to high heaven like sick wet meat. He really hoped whatever they had him on was working.</p><p>She returned from the restroom and replaced Eric's urinal.</p><p>"I'll be back when it's time for your medication," she said. "Dinner is in an hour."</p><p>With that she left until, she knew too well, the next time Eric grew bored or irritated.</p><p>Feeling as anxious as ever, Eric reached for <a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/hardware.html" title="catb.org" rel="nofollow">billywig</a> [catb.org], his <a href="http://support.apple.com/kb/SP126" title="apple.com" rel="nofollow">blueberry iBook</a> [apple.com], which had finally charged. He hit the start button and watched <a href="http://us.fixstars.com/products/ydl/" title="fixstars.com" rel="nofollow">Yellow Dog Linux</a> [fixstars.com] slowly crawl off of the hard drive into RAM.</p><p>Thank god this hospital had wifi. Thank god he had an Airport card in his iBook.</p><p> <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=brown+piss" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/search?q=brown+piss</a> [google.com] </p><p>"Nope."</p><p> <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=my+piss+is+brown" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/search?q=my+piss+is+brown</a> [google.com] </p><p>"Hmm Nope."</p><p> <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=my+piss+is+brown+std" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/search?q=my+piss+is+brown+std</a> [google.com] </p><p>"Nope."</p><p> <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=my+piss+is+brown+and+smells+like+rotting+meat+std" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/search?q=my+piss+is+brown+and+smells+like+rotting+meat+std</a> [google.com] </p><p>Eric was having no luck. The more he optimized his Google searches, he noted with alarm, the less relevant his search hits became.</p><blockquote><div><p>foul smelling like decay meat and at times like grated yam. this odor<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and fifth day i see dirth brown dischargeAbnormal discharge from the nipple<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... the air asking what that rotten meat smell was...and the consequent search<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... So, my UA (urine analysis) came back abnormal </p></div> </blockquote><p>"Jesus Christ!" Eric muttered to himself as he squinted at his iBook's twelve inch screen. "I don't think I have anything coming out of my nipples!"</p><p>Making sure his iBook was steady, he gingerly squeezed his left pectoral.</p><p>"Nope."</p><p>Eric command-tabbed back to vi, where he was typing "RFI on brown piss that smells like rotting meat" to post to <a href="http://esr.ibiblio.org/" title="ibiblio.org" rel="nofollow">his blog</a> [ibiblio.org], when there was a knock at the door.</p><p>"Mr. Raymond?"</p><p>It was the nurse.</p><p>"There's someone here to see you."</p><p>Finally, company! A hacker mind like Eric's was not used to boredom. He needed plenty of <a href="http://www.trollaxor.com/2009/06/eric-emad-iranian-hackers-cyber-buddies.html" title="trollaxor.com" rel="nofollow">Iranian hackers</a> [trollaxor.com] to chat with, a cave full of LARP buddies, or, optimally, a <a href="http://www.trollaxor.com/2001/12/linux-party.html" title="trollaxor.com" rel="nofollow">Linux party</a> [trollaxor.com]. <i>Not</i> the sanitation of lonely, well-lit hospital.</p><p>A second later the door opened again and in walked not Eric's LARP troop or Linux party, but something far less arousing: a New Jersey state police officer.</p><p>"Eric Raymond?" the officer asked. He was 6'2" and built like the Mack trucks he probably ticketed on a daily basis.</p><p>"Yes, sir, that's me, officer," Eric stammered. He hated being dominated.</p><p>"You're under arrest for lewd conduct, public indecency, and conspiracy to solicit," the officer said. The tone in his voice told Eric not to interrupt. "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say"</p><p>Eric's mind wandered. He had to call his wife. She was his attorney and had dealt with this sort of thing before. He had to keep this quiet.</p><p>Eric decided then and there to be as cooperative as possible.</p><p>"Do you understand these rights, Mr. Raymond?"</p><p>"Yeah, sure," Eric said. "But I'd like to share info about the other party involved in this incident."</p><p>"Go ahead?" the officer said, not expecting Eric's offer.</p><p>"The other party," Eric said, "is a man named Emad, an Iranian hacker, quite possible in this country illegally. His email address is <a href="mailto:emad.opensores@gmail.com" title="mailto" rel="nofollow">emad.opensores@gmail.com</a> [mailto] and his AIM handle is <a href="aim:goimscreennameiran2hax0rc0ck" title="aim" rel="nofollow">iran2hax0rc0ck</a> [aim]."</p><p>"Any idea who the other parties involved were?" the trooper asked, taking his notepad out.</p><p>"Other parties? There were no other parties. Just Emad and I."</p><p>"Mr Raymond," the trooper said, "you were the victim of sexual assault last night."</p><p>Eric's left eye twitched. It was usually him, with his Glock and J&#x00E4;germeister, in charge of the proceedings. Not the other way around. He felt so powerless.</p><p>"You'll be arraigned upon your release from the hospital. Do you understand that?"</p><p>"Sure," Eric said, "but why do you think there were other parties? It was just Emad and I the entire time."</p><p>"Mr. Raymond," the trooper said while replacing his notebook, "our crime lab extracted the DNA of two other people from your wounds."</p><p>Eric sweated, cold and salty, and his world spun. Who else had been there?</p><p>"Also," the trooper said, producing a plastic bag, "do you know what this is?"</p><p>He handed the object to Eric, who turned it back and forth. It reflected the room's lights weakly through the baggie.</p><p>"It's Ubuntu," Eric said softly.</p><p>"Ubuntu? What's that?" the trooper said.</p><p>"It's a Linux distribution," Eric said unhelpfully. "Where did you get it?"</p><p>Eric noticed the version number on the CD face as he passed it back to the trooper. 9.10<i>Karmic Koala</i>.</p><p>The trooper looked away before he spoke.</p><p>"The doctors removed it from deep inside your ass."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Eric felt his scrotum contract in its latest desperate attempt to keep his testicles warm .
This hospital , wherever it was , was damned drafty.It did n't help that the nurses on his floor , who had been treating Eric like a complete bitch , liked to keep the air conditioning cranked up .
Or was it just his room ?
He noticed they pulled their cardigans and sweaters around them only when they came to see him. " Nurse !
Nurse ! " Eric shouted .
" Excuse me , nurse ? !
" Eric heard a chair creak , followed by footsteps coming down the hall .
They were quick around here , one of the only good things Eric had yet noticed .
Perhaps it was because of his celebrity status. " Yes ?
" the nurse said , crossing her goose-pimpled arms .
" Nurse , it 's damn cold in here , " Eric said .
" And I think my pain medication is wearing off .
Can I have some more pills ?
" Her beady eyes , set atop wrinkled , puffy cheeks , lasered him in his bed .
This was the sixth time Eric had shouted for her since her shift began .
She did n't know him well but she was definitely starting to hate him. " Oh !
And my urinal needs emptied !
" Eric added.The nurse pursed her lips and folded her arms without breaking eye contact , " get fucked " in body language.Eric smiled a crooked , leering grin at her and winked in a bid to charm her into emptying his piss .
The nurse wondered if he was about to have another seizure.She picked up Eric 's chart , flipped through it , and replaced it. " Mr .
Raymond , " the nurse said , " you 're not due for more pain medication for two more hours .
" Eric 's mustache , orange and drooping , twitched .
" Do you need your bandages looked at ?
" Eric shifted in his bed , stiff and uncomfortable .
He slowly , awkwardly , stretched his hospital gown down over his knees .
" Nooo , no , no I do n't , " Eric said .
" My bandages are just fine .
" " Fine then , " the nurse said .
" I 'll get your urinal .
Do you need anything else ?
" Eric watched as the nurse lifted his urinal carefully off of his lunch tray .
It was completely full1,000 cubic centimeters , one full quart of piss and mounding at the top.The nurse stifled a gag as she slowly made her way into the restroom .
" This damn IV has me swimming !
" Eric called after her with a quick laugh.He heard her pouring his urine into the toilet and felt the urge to go again .
It had been dark brown , viscous , and smelled to high heaven like sick wet meat .
He really hoped whatever they had him on was working.She returned from the restroom and replaced Eric 's urinal .
" I 'll be back when it 's time for your medication , " she said .
" Dinner is in an hour .
" With that she left until , she knew too well , the next time Eric grew bored or irritated.Feeling as anxious as ever , Eric reached for billywig [ catb.org ] , his blueberry iBook [ apple.com ] , which had finally charged .
He hit the start button and watched Yellow Dog Linux [ fixstars.com ] slowly crawl off of the hard drive into RAM.Thank god this hospital had wifi .
Thank god he had an Airport card in his iBook .
http : //www.google.com/search ? q = brown + piss [ google.com ] " Nope .
" http : //www.google.com/search ? q = my + piss + is + brown [ google.com ] " Hmm Nope .
" http : //www.google.com/search ? q = my + piss + is + brown + std [ google.com ] " Nope .
" http : //www.google.com/search ? q = my + piss + is + brown + and + smells + like + rotting + meat + std [ google.com ] Eric was having no luck .
The more he optimized his Google searches , he noted with alarm , the less relevant his search hits became.foul smelling like decay meat and at times like grated yam .
this odor ... and fifth day i see dirth brown dischargeAbnormal discharge from the nipple .... the air asking what that rotten meat smell was...and the consequent search ... So , my UA ( urine analysis ) came back abnormal " Jesus Christ !
" Eric muttered to himself as he squinted at his iBook 's twelve inch screen .
" I do n't think I have anything coming out of my nipples !
" Making sure his iBook was steady , he gingerly squeezed his left pectoral. " Nope .
" Eric command-tabbed back to vi , where he was typing " RFI on brown piss that smells like rotting meat " to post to his blog [ ibiblio.org ] , when there was a knock at the door. " Mr .
Raymond ? " It was the nurse .
" There 's someone here to see you .
" Finally , company !
A hacker mind like Eric 's was not used to boredom .
He needed plenty of Iranian hackers [ trollaxor.com ] to chat with , a cave full of LARP buddies , or , optimally , a Linux party [ trollaxor.com ] .
Not the sanitation of lonely , well-lit hospital.A second later the door opened again and in walked not Eric 's LARP troop or Linux party , but something far less arousing : a New Jersey state police officer .
" Eric Raymond ?
" the officer asked .
He was 6'2 " and built like the Mack trucks he probably ticketed on a daily basis .
" Yes , sir , that 's me , officer , " Eric stammered .
He hated being dominated .
" You 're under arrest for lewd conduct , public indecency , and conspiracy to solicit , " the officer said .
The tone in his voice told Eric not to interrupt .
" You have the right to remain silent .
Anything you say " Eric 's mind wandered .
He had to call his wife .
She was his attorney and had dealt with this sort of thing before .
He had to keep this quiet.Eric decided then and there to be as cooperative as possible .
" Do you understand these rights , Mr .
Raymond ? " " Yeah , sure , " Eric said .
" But I 'd like to share info about the other party involved in this incident .
" " Go ahead ?
" the officer said , not expecting Eric 's offer .
" The other party , " Eric said , " is a man named Emad , an Iranian hacker , quite possible in this country illegally .
His email address is emad.opensores @ gmail.com [ mailto ] and his AIM handle is iran2hax0rc0ck [ aim ] .
" " Any idea who the other parties involved were ?
" the trooper asked , taking his notepad out .
" Other parties ?
There were no other parties .
Just Emad and I .
" " Mr Raymond , " the trooper said , " you were the victim of sexual assault last night .
" Eric 's left eye twitched .
It was usually him , with his Glock and J   germeister , in charge of the proceedings .
Not the other way around .
He felt so powerless .
" You 'll be arraigned upon your release from the hospital .
Do you understand that ?
" " Sure , " Eric said , " but why do you think there were other parties ?
It was just Emad and I the entire time. " " Mr .
Raymond , " the trooper said while replacing his notebook , " our crime lab extracted the DNA of two other people from your wounds .
" Eric sweated , cold and salty , and his world spun .
Who else had been there ?
" Also , " the trooper said , producing a plastic bag , " do you know what this is ?
" He handed the object to Eric , who turned it back and forth .
It reflected the room 's lights weakly through the baggie .
" It 's Ubuntu , " Eric said softly. " Ubuntu ?
What 's that ?
" the trooper said .
" It 's a Linux distribution , " Eric said unhelpfully .
" Where did you get it ?
" Eric noticed the version number on the CD face as he passed it back to the trooper .
9.10Karmic Koala.The trooper looked away before he spoke .
" The doctors removed it from deep inside your ass .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eric felt his scrotum contract in its latest desperate attempt to keep his testicles warm.
This hospital, wherever it was, was damned drafty.It didn't help that the nurses on his floor, who had been treating Eric like a complete bitch, liked to keep the air conditioning cranked up.
Or was it just his room?
He noticed they pulled their cardigans and sweaters around them only when they came to see him."Nurse!
Nurse!" Eric shouted.
"Excuse me, nurse?!
"Eric heard a chair creak, followed by footsteps coming down the hall.
They were quick around here, one of the only good things Eric had yet noticed.
Perhaps it was because of his celebrity status."Yes?
" the nurse said, crossing her goose-pimpled arms.
"Nurse, it's damn cold in here," Eric said.
"And I think my pain medication is wearing off.
Can I have some more pills?
"Her beady eyes, set atop wrinkled, puffy cheeks, lasered him in his bed.
This was the sixth time Eric had shouted for her since her shift began.
She didn't know him well but she was definitely starting to hate him."Oh!
And my urinal needs emptied!
" Eric added.The nurse pursed her lips and folded her arms without breaking eye contact, "get fucked" in body language.Eric smiled a crooked, leering grin at her and winked in a bid to charm her into emptying his piss.
The nurse wondered if he was about to have another seizure.She picked up Eric's chart, flipped through it, and replaced it."Mr.
Raymond," the nurse said, "you're not due for more pain medication for two more hours.
"Eric's mustache, orange and drooping, twitched.
"Do you need your bandages looked at?
"Eric shifted in his bed, stiff and uncomfortable.
He slowly, awkwardly, stretched his hospital gown down over his knees.
"Nooo, no, no I don't," Eric said.
"My bandages are just fine.
""Fine then," the nurse said.
"I'll get your urinal.
Do you need anything else?
"Eric watched as the nurse lifted his urinal carefully off of his lunch tray.
It was completely full1,000 cubic centimeters, one full quart of piss and mounding at the top.The nurse stifled a gag as she slowly made her way into the restroom.
"This damn IV has me swimming!
" Eric called after her with a quick laugh.He heard her pouring his urine into the toilet and felt the urge to go again.
It had been dark brown, viscous, and smelled to high heaven like sick wet meat.
He really hoped whatever they had him on was working.She returned from the restroom and replaced Eric's urinal.
"I'll be back when it's time for your medication," she said.
"Dinner is in an hour.
"With that she left until, she knew too well, the next time Eric grew bored or irritated.Feeling as anxious as ever, Eric reached for billywig [catb.org], his blueberry iBook [apple.com], which had finally charged.
He hit the start button and watched Yellow Dog Linux [fixstars.com] slowly crawl off of the hard drive into RAM.Thank god this hospital had wifi.
Thank god he had an Airport card in his iBook.
http://www.google.com/search?q=brown+piss [google.com] "Nope.
" http://www.google.com/search?q=my+piss+is+brown [google.com] "Hmm Nope.
" http://www.google.com/search?q=my+piss+is+brown+std [google.com] "Nope.
" http://www.google.com/search?q=my+piss+is+brown+and+smells+like+rotting+meat+std [google.com] Eric was having no luck.
The more he optimized his Google searches, he noted with alarm, the less relevant his search hits became.foul smelling like decay meat and at times like grated yam.
this odor ... and fifth day i see dirth brown dischargeAbnormal discharge from the nipple .... the air asking what that rotten meat smell was...and the consequent search ... So, my UA (urine analysis) came back abnormal  "Jesus Christ!
" Eric muttered to himself as he squinted at his iBook's twelve inch screen.
"I don't think I have anything coming out of my nipples!
"Making sure his iBook was steady, he gingerly squeezed his left pectoral."Nope.
"Eric command-tabbed back to vi, where he was typing "RFI on brown piss that smells like rotting meat" to post to his blog [ibiblio.org], when there was a knock at the door."Mr.
Raymond?"It was the nurse.
"There's someone here to see you.
"Finally, company!
A hacker mind like Eric's was not used to boredom.
He needed plenty of Iranian hackers [trollaxor.com] to chat with, a cave full of LARP buddies, or, optimally, a Linux party [trollaxor.com].
Not the sanitation of lonely, well-lit hospital.A second later the door opened again and in walked not Eric's LARP troop or Linux party, but something far less arousing: a New Jersey state police officer.
"Eric Raymond?
" the officer asked.
He was 6'2" and built like the Mack trucks he probably ticketed on a daily basis.
"Yes, sir, that's me, officer," Eric stammered.
He hated being dominated.
"You're under arrest for lewd conduct, public indecency, and conspiracy to solicit," the officer said.
The tone in his voice told Eric not to interrupt.
"You have the right to remain silent.
Anything you say"Eric's mind wandered.
He had to call his wife.
She was his attorney and had dealt with this sort of thing before.
He had to keep this quiet.Eric decided then and there to be as cooperative as possible.
"Do you understand these rights, Mr.
Raymond?""Yeah, sure," Eric said.
"But I'd like to share info about the other party involved in this incident.
""Go ahead?
" the officer said, not expecting Eric's offer.
"The other party," Eric said, "is a man named Emad, an Iranian hacker, quite possible in this country illegally.
His email address is emad.opensores@gmail.com [mailto] and his AIM handle is iran2hax0rc0ck [aim].
""Any idea who the other parties involved were?
" the trooper asked, taking his notepad out.
"Other parties?
There were no other parties.
Just Emad and I.
""Mr Raymond," the trooper said, "you were the victim of sexual assault last night.
"Eric's left eye twitched.
It was usually him, with his Glock and Jägermeister, in charge of the proceedings.
Not the other way around.
He felt so powerless.
"You'll be arraigned upon your release from the hospital.
Do you understand that?
""Sure," Eric said, "but why do you think there were other parties?
It was just Emad and I the entire time.""Mr.
Raymond," the trooper said while replacing his notebook, "our crime lab extracted the DNA of two other people from your wounds.
"Eric sweated, cold and salty, and his world spun.
Who else had been there?
"Also," the trooper said, producing a plastic bag, "do you know what this is?
"He handed the object to Eric, who turned it back and forth.
It reflected the room's lights weakly through the baggie.
"It's Ubuntu," Eric said softly."Ubuntu?
What's that?
" the trooper said.
"It's a Linux distribution," Eric said unhelpfully.
"Where did you get it?
"Eric noticed the version number on the CD face as he passed it back to the trooper.
9.10Karmic Koala.The trooper looked away before he spoke.
"The doctors removed it from deep inside your ass.
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28682837</id>
	<title>Re:ribbons</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1247480520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I find that hard to believe. How many of those people they asked actually used office as a mission critical application in their day to day use?</i></p><p>Haha! How many people who bitch about the ribbon on Slashdot actually use Office as a mission-critical application in their day-to-day use?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find that hard to believe .
How many of those people they asked actually used office as a mission critical application in their day to day use ? Haha !
How many people who bitch about the ribbon on Slashdot actually use Office as a mission-critical application in their day-to-day use ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find that hard to believe.
How many of those people they asked actually used office as a mission critical application in their day to day use?Haha!
How many people who bitch about the ribbon on Slashdot actually use Office as a mission-critical application in their day-to-day use?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680615</id>
	<title>WordPerfect 5.1 - Reveal Codes</title>
	<author>handy\_vandal</author>
	<datestamp>1247514360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <em>Especially because Reveal Codes was so much faster for fixing formatting problems than Word to this day. </em> </p><p>Yes!  You have hit the nail square on the head, my friend!  Reveal Codes, that's what I immediately and sorely missed when my then-employer switched from WordPerfect to Word!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Especially because Reveal Codes was so much faster for fixing formatting problems than Word to this day .
Yes ! You have hit the nail square on the head , my friend !
Reveal Codes , that 's what I immediately and sorely missed when my then-employer switched from WordPerfect to Word !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Especially because Reveal Codes was so much faster for fixing formatting problems than Word to this day.
Yes!  You have hit the nail square on the head, my friend!
Reveal Codes, that's what I immediately and sorely missed when my then-employer switched from WordPerfect to Word!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679147</id>
	<title>Re:Not again!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247509440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what you're saying is that when a company makes changes to something it is bad, but when it refuses to change things it is bad. I thought that Microsoft wasn't making enough changes to its software to keep up with other innovations. Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody has ever attempted to create an interface like the Ribbon before in an office suite. So when Microsoft comes up with something new, suddenly it's not okay to be running for the new.</p><p>This community constantly rails against how Microsoft has aped other OS vendors to try to make their products better, and then rails against Microsoft trying to innovate in their own software. It's like every post is a new punch bowl filled with red kool-aid stupid. Could we please get past the 1990's Microsoft vs. Linux attitude and admit that it's possible for one arm of a company to do bad things while another arm of the company does good things? Not everything boils down to a "good vs. evil" essential conflict.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what you 're saying is that when a company makes changes to something it is bad , but when it refuses to change things it is bad .
I thought that Microsoft was n't making enough changes to its software to keep up with other innovations .
Correct me if I 'm wrong , but nobody has ever attempted to create an interface like the Ribbon before in an office suite .
So when Microsoft comes up with something new , suddenly it 's not okay to be running for the new.This community constantly rails against how Microsoft has aped other OS vendors to try to make their products better , and then rails against Microsoft trying to innovate in their own software .
It 's like every post is a new punch bowl filled with red kool-aid stupid .
Could we please get past the 1990 's Microsoft vs. Linux attitude and admit that it 's possible for one arm of a company to do bad things while another arm of the company does good things ?
Not everything boils down to a " good vs. evil " essential conflict .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what you're saying is that when a company makes changes to something it is bad, but when it refuses to change things it is bad.
I thought that Microsoft wasn't making enough changes to its software to keep up with other innovations.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody has ever attempted to create an interface like the Ribbon before in an office suite.
So when Microsoft comes up with something new, suddenly it's not okay to be running for the new.This community constantly rails against how Microsoft has aped other OS vendors to try to make their products better, and then rails against Microsoft trying to innovate in their own software.
It's like every post is a new punch bowl filled with red kool-aid stupid.
Could we please get past the 1990's Microsoft vs. Linux attitude and admit that it's possible for one arm of a company to do bad things while another arm of the company does good things?
Not everything boils down to a "good vs. evil" essential conflict.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678685</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679233</id>
	<title>Re:Memo to Microsoft: Leave it alone</title>
	<author>PainKilleR-CE</author>
	<datestamp>1247509740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fact is that Microsoft was right to ditch the traditional menus in most of the Office programs, because they were heavily bloated and every user needed to customize their toolbar to have a clean interface that they could actually use (or memorize the keyboard shortcuts, which for the most part haven't changed from 95 to 2007). Whether or not their 2007 (or 2010) implementation is any better depends somewhat on the user (and in part their willingness to adapt), but at least they're trying to do something about it, instead of just leaving everyone with 3 lines of toolbars and having 75\% or more of the buttons on their screen go unused 99.9\% of the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact is that Microsoft was right to ditch the traditional menus in most of the Office programs , because they were heavily bloated and every user needed to customize their toolbar to have a clean interface that they could actually use ( or memorize the keyboard shortcuts , which for the most part have n't changed from 95 to 2007 ) .
Whether or not their 2007 ( or 2010 ) implementation is any better depends somewhat on the user ( and in part their willingness to adapt ) , but at least they 're trying to do something about it , instead of just leaving everyone with 3 lines of toolbars and having 75 \ % or more of the buttons on their screen go unused 99.9 \ % of the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact is that Microsoft was right to ditch the traditional menus in most of the Office programs, because they were heavily bloated and every user needed to customize their toolbar to have a clean interface that they could actually use (or memorize the keyboard shortcuts, which for the most part haven't changed from 95 to 2007).
Whether or not their 2007 (or 2010) implementation is any better depends somewhat on the user (and in part their willingness to adapt), but at least they're trying to do something about it, instead of just leaving everyone with 3 lines of toolbars and having 75\% or more of the buttons on their screen go unused 99.9\% of the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680245</id>
	<title>Re:Three Reasons to Hate the Ribbon</title>
	<author>spyrochaete</author>
	<datestamp>1247512980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1: It takes away valuable vertical screen real estate and cannot be repositioned to less valuable side areas.</p><p>2: It changes based on what it's Application Telepathy <i>thinks</i> you are doing.</p><p>3: You are not even offered the option of backwards compatibility to the old, customizable, fixed menuing system -- Microsoft dictates that they know what's best for you!</p></div><p>1 - You can double click one of the major headings on the ribbon to hide it until it's clicked again.  Then it behaves like a pulldown menu.</p><p>2 - It's called semantic computing.  It makes computing task-based instead of command-based.  People don't want to think about repeatedly putting one foot in front of the other - they want to walk to the store.</p><p>3 - AKA older is betterer?  I disagree - especially when you call the old pulldown menus "fixed".  Pick 5 tasks, do them on Office 2003 and 2007, and count the mouse clicks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 : It takes away valuable vertical screen real estate and can not be repositioned to less valuable side areas.2 : It changes based on what it 's Application Telepathy thinks you are doing.3 : You are not even offered the option of backwards compatibility to the old , customizable , fixed menuing system -- Microsoft dictates that they know what 's best for you ! 1 - You can double click one of the major headings on the ribbon to hide it until it 's clicked again .
Then it behaves like a pulldown menu.2 - It 's called semantic computing .
It makes computing task-based instead of command-based .
People do n't want to think about repeatedly putting one foot in front of the other - they want to walk to the store.3 - AKA older is betterer ?
I disagree - especially when you call the old pulldown menus " fixed " .
Pick 5 tasks , do them on Office 2003 and 2007 , and count the mouse clicks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1: It takes away valuable vertical screen real estate and cannot be repositioned to less valuable side areas.2: It changes based on what it's Application Telepathy thinks you are doing.3: You are not even offered the option of backwards compatibility to the old, customizable, fixed menuing system -- Microsoft dictates that they know what's best for you!1 - You can double click one of the major headings on the ribbon to hide it until it's clicked again.
Then it behaves like a pulldown menu.2 - It's called semantic computing.
It makes computing task-based instead of command-based.
People don't want to think about repeatedly putting one foot in front of the other - they want to walk to the store.3 - AKA older is betterer?
I disagree - especially when you call the old pulldown menus "fixed".
Pick 5 tasks, do them on Office 2003 and 2007, and count the mouse clicks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28684029</id>
	<title>Re:WordPerfect 5.1</title>
	<author>WuphonsReach</author>
	<datestamp>1247486580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I could have been happy using WordPerfect 5.1 for the rest of my life -- it did everything I need a word processor to do.</i> <br>
<br>
Hmmm, meanwhile the technical writers at a company I worked for back around 1990 liked to call it WordStupid.<br>
<br>
(Granted, they were doing extremely complex documentation...)<br>
<br>
I figure we'll upgrade off of Office 2003 sometime around 2011/2012...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I could have been happy using WordPerfect 5.1 for the rest of my life -- it did everything I need a word processor to do .
Hmmm , meanwhile the technical writers at a company I worked for back around 1990 liked to call it WordStupid .
( Granted , they were doing extremely complex documentation... ) I figure we 'll upgrade off of Office 2003 sometime around 2011/2012.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I could have been happy using WordPerfect 5.1 for the rest of my life -- it did everything I need a word processor to do.
Hmmm, meanwhile the technical writers at a company I worked for back around 1990 liked to call it WordStupid.
(Granted, they were doing extremely complex documentation...)

I figure we'll upgrade off of Office 2003 sometime around 2011/2012...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680895</id>
	<title>Re:ribbons</title>
	<author>neolith</author>
	<datestamp>1247515740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a power user I hated the ribbon for about four weeks, until I actually quit bitching and moaning about it and started using it.  Now I prefer it, and don't like the former interface.  Even for relatively advanced spreadsheet tasks involving remote data access with cubing and other analytic voodoo, I find that the ribbon is faster and easier to use for every task I use Word, Access, and Excel for, and on the rare occasions I have to use a new feature it is easier to guess at what category of task they filed it under than the old nested menu bar.  Even our oldest, gnarliest, set-in-their-ways troll-beasts in accounting have grudgingly accepted and even begun to admire the ribbon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a power user I hated the ribbon for about four weeks , until I actually quit bitching and moaning about it and started using it .
Now I prefer it , and do n't like the former interface .
Even for relatively advanced spreadsheet tasks involving remote data access with cubing and other analytic voodoo , I find that the ribbon is faster and easier to use for every task I use Word , Access , and Excel for , and on the rare occasions I have to use a new feature it is easier to guess at what category of task they filed it under than the old nested menu bar .
Even our oldest , gnarliest , set-in-their-ways troll-beasts in accounting have grudgingly accepted and even begun to admire the ribbon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a power user I hated the ribbon for about four weeks, until I actually quit bitching and moaning about it and started using it.
Now I prefer it, and don't like the former interface.
Even for relatively advanced spreadsheet tasks involving remote data access with cubing and other analytic voodoo, I find that the ribbon is faster and easier to use for every task I use Word, Access, and Excel for, and on the rare occasions I have to use a new feature it is easier to guess at what category of task they filed it under than the old nested menu bar.
Even our oldest, gnarliest, set-in-their-ways troll-beasts in accounting have grudgingly accepted and even begun to admire the ribbon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679245</id>
	<title>Re:But...still not fixed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247509800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>or how about Excel's cut &amp; paste functionality working in even remotely the same fashion as everywhere else in Windows (or Office)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>or how about Excel 's cut &amp; paste functionality working in even remotely the same fashion as everywhere else in Windows ( or Office ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or how about Excel's cut &amp; paste functionality working in even remotely the same fashion as everywhere else in Windows (or Office)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680427</id>
	<title>Re:Good Enough</title>
	<author>cepayne</author>
	<datestamp>1247513640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Changing things for the sake of changing things keeps their handful of investors<br>
from selling off their shares, hense making Microsoft happy that they held onto<br>
those shares.
<br> <br>
The fact that there are users who must face the challenges of using Microsoft<br>
Office in its various forms is inconsequential.  It is all about the overvalued shares.<br>
<br>
"It is good enough", is in fact good enough to keep them in business.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Changing things for the sake of changing things keeps their handful of investors from selling off their shares , hense making Microsoft happy that they held onto those shares .
The fact that there are users who must face the challenges of using Microsoft Office in its various forms is inconsequential .
It is all about the overvalued shares .
" It is good enough " , is in fact good enough to keep them in business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Changing things for the sake of changing things keeps their handful of investors
from selling off their shares, hense making Microsoft happy that they held onto
those shares.
The fact that there are users who must face the challenges of using Microsoft
Office in its various forms is inconsequential.
It is all about the overvalued shares.
"It is good enough", is in fact good enough to keep them in business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678687</id>
	<title>Good Enough</title>
	<author>Archangel Michael</author>
	<datestamp>1247508000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft has long been promoting "good enough" approach to things. It isn't the most secure<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... it is good enough. It isn't the most robust<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... it is good enough. It isn't the most productive<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... it is good enough.</p><p>This is the Achilles heal of Microsoft. With Windows XP and Office since 2000 or even 2003, has been "good enough". I can't think of ANYTHING Microsoft can offer in Win 7 or Office 2010 that I would actually use. And changing how things work, just for the sake of changing how they work, is counter productive.</p><p>In early 2003 I made the statement that 2008 was going to be the first sign of Microsoft's demise as tech leader. The Storm has hit, and is now ravaging Microsoft. Google is building Chrome OS (which I would assume is tied to Android<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... somewhere), Open Office is very usable, Wine is getting to the point of being solid, Linux is appearing on desktops, Webservices, mobile devices (iPhone, Blackberry, Android) etc.</p><p>You can see the panic at Microsoft in their web services division, from the search engines changes to Live and now to Bing. You can see the panic in the OS and Office with the huge changes in the UI to cover up that really nothing has changed since 2000.</p><p>Microsoft is suffering from the "good enough" syndrome. Everything they have made for the last 6 or 8 years is "good enough" and when Vista comes along and changes things just to change things, people buck against it. You'll see more of the same with Office.</p><p>I honestly think one of the reasons Gates left, was because he saw the writing on the wall, and got out while the getting was good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft has long been promoting " good enough " approach to things .
It is n't the most secure ... it is good enough .
It is n't the most robust ... it is good enough .
It is n't the most productive ... it is good enough.This is the Achilles heal of Microsoft .
With Windows XP and Office since 2000 or even 2003 , has been " good enough " .
I ca n't think of ANYTHING Microsoft can offer in Win 7 or Office 2010 that I would actually use .
And changing how things work , just for the sake of changing how they work , is counter productive.In early 2003 I made the statement that 2008 was going to be the first sign of Microsoft 's demise as tech leader .
The Storm has hit , and is now ravaging Microsoft .
Google is building Chrome OS ( which I would assume is tied to Android ... somewhere ) , Open Office is very usable , Wine is getting to the point of being solid , Linux is appearing on desktops , Webservices , mobile devices ( iPhone , Blackberry , Android ) etc.You can see the panic at Microsoft in their web services division , from the search engines changes to Live and now to Bing .
You can see the panic in the OS and Office with the huge changes in the UI to cover up that really nothing has changed since 2000.Microsoft is suffering from the " good enough " syndrome .
Everything they have made for the last 6 or 8 years is " good enough " and when Vista comes along and changes things just to change things , people buck against it .
You 'll see more of the same with Office.I honestly think one of the reasons Gates left , was because he saw the writing on the wall , and got out while the getting was good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft has long been promoting "good enough" approach to things.
It isn't the most secure ... it is good enough.
It isn't the most robust ... it is good enough.
It isn't the most productive ... it is good enough.This is the Achilles heal of Microsoft.
With Windows XP and Office since 2000 or even 2003, has been "good enough".
I can't think of ANYTHING Microsoft can offer in Win 7 or Office 2010 that I would actually use.
And changing how things work, just for the sake of changing how they work, is counter productive.In early 2003 I made the statement that 2008 was going to be the first sign of Microsoft's demise as tech leader.
The Storm has hit, and is now ravaging Microsoft.
Google is building Chrome OS (which I would assume is tied to Android ... somewhere), Open Office is very usable, Wine is getting to the point of being solid, Linux is appearing on desktops, Webservices, mobile devices (iPhone, Blackberry, Android) etc.You can see the panic at Microsoft in their web services division, from the search engines changes to Live and now to Bing.
You can see the panic in the OS and Office with the huge changes in the UI to cover up that really nothing has changed since 2000.Microsoft is suffering from the "good enough" syndrome.
Everything they have made for the last 6 or 8 years is "good enough" and when Vista comes along and changes things just to change things, people buck against it.
You'll see more of the same with Office.I honestly think one of the reasons Gates left, was because he saw the writing on the wall, and got out while the getting was good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680849</id>
	<title>Re:Not again!</title>
	<author>b4dc0d3r</author>
	<datestamp>1247515500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This community constantly rails against how Microsoft has aped other OS vendors to try to make their products better, and then rails against Microsoft trying to innovate in their own software.</p></div></blockquote><p>First thing - "this community" is made up of individuals with differing opinions, so it's probably not the same people.  It's a sympathetic audience, so no matter what you disagree with you're likely to find support here if you just post.  Not surprising.</p><p>For my part, it's because no matter what they do, they get it wrong.  It doesn't flow exactly right, or something.  Like putting the "Close" button directly next to the "maximize" button.  Or using "Start" when you want to "shut down".  It's always something that shows quite blatantly that they really kinda thought about it, but didn't think all the way through.</p><p>Microsoft refuses to change things that don't make sense, usually for "compatibility" or because people are used to it or other such nonsense explanation.  Then they make huge changes, which impact the speed with which people are able to do work.  That's productivity going down, and there's no way to turn it off.</p><p>The new interface is basically Mouse-only, unless you happen to remember the shortcuts from 2003.  In 2003, when I hit ALT+D I have options and I can see all of the things I can do with data in case I forget.  With 2007, it's "Continue typing the Office 2003 menu key sequence."  While I'm glad they at least left that intact, you have to have a cheat sheet somewhere to look everything up, which is back to exactly the problem we had with early word processors and the function key templates you had to overlay on the keyboard in order to do anything.  "Use the mouse" is what MS is trying to do, despite decades of "make it accessible to everyone" lectures.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This community constantly rails against how Microsoft has aped other OS vendors to try to make their products better , and then rails against Microsoft trying to innovate in their own software.First thing - " this community " is made up of individuals with differing opinions , so it 's probably not the same people .
It 's a sympathetic audience , so no matter what you disagree with you 're likely to find support here if you just post .
Not surprising.For my part , it 's because no matter what they do , they get it wrong .
It does n't flow exactly right , or something .
Like putting the " Close " button directly next to the " maximize " button .
Or using " Start " when you want to " shut down " .
It 's always something that shows quite blatantly that they really kinda thought about it , but did n't think all the way through.Microsoft refuses to change things that do n't make sense , usually for " compatibility " or because people are used to it or other such nonsense explanation .
Then they make huge changes , which impact the speed with which people are able to do work .
That 's productivity going down , and there 's no way to turn it off.The new interface is basically Mouse-only , unless you happen to remember the shortcuts from 2003 .
In 2003 , when I hit ALT + D I have options and I can see all of the things I can do with data in case I forget .
With 2007 , it 's " Continue typing the Office 2003 menu key sequence .
" While I 'm glad they at least left that intact , you have to have a cheat sheet somewhere to look everything up , which is back to exactly the problem we had with early word processors and the function key templates you had to overlay on the keyboard in order to do anything .
" Use the mouse " is what MS is trying to do , despite decades of " make it accessible to everyone " lectures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This community constantly rails against how Microsoft has aped other OS vendors to try to make their products better, and then rails against Microsoft trying to innovate in their own software.First thing - "this community" is made up of individuals with differing opinions, so it's probably not the same people.
It's a sympathetic audience, so no matter what you disagree with you're likely to find support here if you just post.
Not surprising.For my part, it's because no matter what they do, they get it wrong.
It doesn't flow exactly right, or something.
Like putting the "Close" button directly next to the "maximize" button.
Or using "Start" when you want to "shut down".
It's always something that shows quite blatantly that they really kinda thought about it, but didn't think all the way through.Microsoft refuses to change things that don't make sense, usually for "compatibility" or because people are used to it or other such nonsense explanation.
Then they make huge changes, which impact the speed with which people are able to do work.
That's productivity going down, and there's no way to turn it off.The new interface is basically Mouse-only, unless you happen to remember the shortcuts from 2003.
In 2003, when I hit ALT+D I have options and I can see all of the things I can do with data in case I forget.
With 2007, it's "Continue typing the Office 2003 menu key sequence.
"  While I'm glad they at least left that intact, you have to have a cheat sheet somewhere to look everything up, which is back to exactly the problem we had with early word processors and the function key templates you had to overlay on the keyboard in order to do anything.
"Use the mouse" is what MS is trying to do, despite decades of "make it accessible to everyone" lectures.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28682057</id>
	<title>Re:ODF</title>
	<author>RaymondKurzweil</author>
	<datestamp>1247477160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to Wikipedia, OOXML is superior to ODF anyway!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to Wikipedia , OOXML is superior to ODF anyway !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to Wikipedia, OOXML is superior to ODF anyway!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28695481</id>
	<title>So what's the new default format: docy?</title>
	<author>slashbart</author>
	<datestamp>1247562660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>xlsy?</htmltext>
<tokenext>xlsy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>xlsy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680785</id>
	<title>Re:Not again!</title>
	<author>pizzach</author>
	<datestamp>1247515260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You should thank OpenOffice.org for forcing Microsoft to try something new and trying to keep ahead of the competition.  After all, that is what OSS is for, right?  Gotta keep that lower bar raising.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You should thank OpenOffice.org for forcing Microsoft to try something new and trying to keep ahead of the competition .
After all , that is what OSS is for , right ?
Got ta keep that lower bar raising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should thank OpenOffice.org for forcing Microsoft to try something new and trying to keep ahead of the competition.
After all, that is what OSS is for, right?
Gotta keep that lower bar raising.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678685</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28682033</id>
	<title>Re:Three Reasons to Hate the Ribbon</title>
	<author>WesternActor</author>
	<datestamp>1247477040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with everything you're saying, but there's at least a way to "collapse" it when you don't need it.  Ctrl-F1.  It'll come back if/when you have to do something, but until then you can at least recover some of that vertical real estate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with everything you 're saying , but there 's at least a way to " collapse " it when you do n't need it .
Ctrl-F1. It 'll come back if/when you have to do something , but until then you can at least recover some of that vertical real estate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with everything you're saying, but there's at least a way to "collapse" it when you don't need it.
Ctrl-F1.  It'll come back if/when you have to do something, but until then you can at least recover some of that vertical real estate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678925</id>
	<title>one-upping Google</title>
	<author>spyrochaete</author>
	<datestamp>1247508720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I found it really interesting to hear that Microsoft is pushing so hard for web-based solutions, as well as incorporating network features into the local client.  They seem to be adopting all the best features of Google Apps/Writely and putting extra polish on them.</p><p>For instance, anyone who's used Google Apps knows how bad the cross-compatibility is with Office documents so this alone will be the main decider for most businesses.  Also, Google Apps' interface is rudamintary and the applications are utterly worthless for formatting documents for print, so these are areas MS can really excel in the cloud.  It's also neat to see Microsoft incorporate collaborative edits of a single document - this was Google's main differentiator until now as it was infinitely better than Sharepoint's check-out system.</p><p>Most importantly for non-US businesses, Microsoft offers locally installed, locally hosted server solutions which means you don't have to entrust your private data to the cloud, the PATRIOT Act, or man-in-the-middle attacks.  Also, your workplace doesn't stop if your WAN connection goes down.</p><p>I predict these features will be of little value to small businesses and home users who may opt for cheap or free competing products, but MS has a very good handle on how the workplace is evolving and becoming more distributed and this awareness will be very attractive for mid-to-large businesses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I found it really interesting to hear that Microsoft is pushing so hard for web-based solutions , as well as incorporating network features into the local client .
They seem to be adopting all the best features of Google Apps/Writely and putting extra polish on them.For instance , anyone who 's used Google Apps knows how bad the cross-compatibility is with Office documents so this alone will be the main decider for most businesses .
Also , Google Apps ' interface is rudamintary and the applications are utterly worthless for formatting documents for print , so these are areas MS can really excel in the cloud .
It 's also neat to see Microsoft incorporate collaborative edits of a single document - this was Google 's main differentiator until now as it was infinitely better than Sharepoint 's check-out system.Most importantly for non-US businesses , Microsoft offers locally installed , locally hosted server solutions which means you do n't have to entrust your private data to the cloud , the PATRIOT Act , or man-in-the-middle attacks .
Also , your workplace does n't stop if your WAN connection goes down.I predict these features will be of little value to small businesses and home users who may opt for cheap or free competing products , but MS has a very good handle on how the workplace is evolving and becoming more distributed and this awareness will be very attractive for mid-to-large businesses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I found it really interesting to hear that Microsoft is pushing so hard for web-based solutions, as well as incorporating network features into the local client.
They seem to be adopting all the best features of Google Apps/Writely and putting extra polish on them.For instance, anyone who's used Google Apps knows how bad the cross-compatibility is with Office documents so this alone will be the main decider for most businesses.
Also, Google Apps' interface is rudamintary and the applications are utterly worthless for formatting documents for print, so these are areas MS can really excel in the cloud.
It's also neat to see Microsoft incorporate collaborative edits of a single document - this was Google's main differentiator until now as it was infinitely better than Sharepoint's check-out system.Most importantly for non-US businesses, Microsoft offers locally installed, locally hosted server solutions which means you don't have to entrust your private data to the cloud, the PATRIOT Act, or man-in-the-middle attacks.
Also, your workplace doesn't stop if your WAN connection goes down.I predict these features will be of little value to small businesses and home users who may opt for cheap or free competing products, but MS has a very good handle on how the workplace is evolving and becoming more distributed and this awareness will be very attractive for mid-to-large businesses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678911</id>
	<title>WordPerfect 5.1</title>
	<author>handy\_vandal</author>
	<datestamp>1247508660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I could have been happy using WordPerfect 5.1 for the rest of my life -- it did everything I need a word processor to do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I could have been happy using WordPerfect 5.1 for the rest of my life -- it did everything I need a word processor to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I could have been happy using WordPerfect 5.1 for the rest of my life -- it did everything I need a word processor to do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679451</id>
	<title>Three Reasons to Hate the Ribbon</title>
	<author>Nom du Keyboard</author>
	<datestamp>1247510460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>1: It takes away valuable vertical screen real estate and cannot be repositioned to less valuable side areas.<br>
2: It changes based on what it's Application Telepathy <i>thinks</i> you are doing.<br>
3: You are not even offered the option of backwards compatibility to the old, customizable, fixed menuing system -- Microsoft dictates that they know what's best for you!<br> <br>
Can forced Dvorak keyboards with no QWERTY option be far behind?</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 : It takes away valuable vertical screen real estate and can not be repositioned to less valuable side areas .
2 : It changes based on what it 's Application Telepathy thinks you are doing .
3 : You are not even offered the option of backwards compatibility to the old , customizable , fixed menuing system -- Microsoft dictates that they know what 's best for you !
Can forced Dvorak keyboards with no QWERTY option be far behind ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1: It takes away valuable vertical screen real estate and cannot be repositioned to less valuable side areas.
2: It changes based on what it's Application Telepathy thinks you are doing.
3: You are not even offered the option of backwards compatibility to the old, customizable, fixed menuing system -- Microsoft dictates that they know what's best for you!
Can forced Dvorak keyboards with no QWERTY option be far behind?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679989</id>
	<title>Re:Not again!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247512080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They are not ending support for 2007...buy a new one.<br> <br>

What's with people getting angst about a new product every 3-5 years?  Adobe comes out with a new photoshop every 1-2 yeasr. Same with Intuit products.  Not a big deal...keep using what you like. I still know many people who use office 2003.  It works great.<br> <br>

The biggest group of users to use 2010 will be those who got brand new computers and don't have an older version.<br> <br>

Techies all of a sudden wanting to slow down progres...all in the hate of MS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are not ending support for 2007...buy a new one .
What 's with people getting angst about a new product every 3-5 years ?
Adobe comes out with a new photoshop every 1-2 yeasr .
Same with Intuit products .
Not a big deal...keep using what you like .
I still know many people who use office 2003 .
It works great .
The biggest group of users to use 2010 will be those who got brand new computers and do n't have an older version .
Techies all of a sudden wanting to slow down progres...all in the hate of MS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are not ending support for 2007...buy a new one.
What's with people getting angst about a new product every 3-5 years?
Adobe comes out with a new photoshop every 1-2 yeasr.
Same with Intuit products.
Not a big deal...keep using what you like.
I still know many people who use office 2003.
It works great.
The biggest group of users to use 2010 will be those who got brand new computers and don't have an older version.
Techies all of a sudden wanting to slow down progres...all in the hate of MS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678685</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28699775</id>
	<title>MS Office is no longer fit for work environment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247589540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used MS Office for years, the best version in my opinion being 2003.  Sure, I had Star Office on the side and it was always better but everyone else insisted that I give the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc files.  Then the ribbon and 2007 come along.  Now it might have been possible that I could have eventually gotten along with the ribbon, maybe.  However it was the overall greed of MS that finally pushed me away.  I work at a company in Japan where we have people from more than 25 different countries, who all speak a different native language working in the same office.  That said, English was the language of the office, not Japanese.  Our Japanese boss knew that the second she walked through our door, she had to speak English or not be understood.  So what does MS do, they sell JAPANESE MS office 2007 to the company as the upgrade instead of the English version.</p><p>What really pissed us off more than suddenly finding Japanese MS Office on our computers was the fact that the English is in there, we just can't unlock it.  So we are stuck looking at the ribbon in Japanese not knowing what any of the kanji mean.  Even the guys who could speak some Japanese could not read Kanji, it is hard.  Even some of the Japanese staff did not know what some of that kanji meant.  They thought it was the Chinese version.  We looked into getting the language packs, even into paying $300 a pop just to be able to get back to work.  Well, MS loves the rest of the world but they apparently English speakers who live in Japan because we did not even have the option of buying the language packs.  Instead we would need to order the FULL PRODUCT again in English, despite the fact that English was already in the program we had, we just needed to unlock it.  Anyone else in the entire world can order those stupid language packs but we can't because we live in Japan.</p><p>So we took a step back.  We were not about to use this crap.  It would have been trouble enough to learn to use the ribbon in English and now we had to learn to use it in Japanese.  We all signed a letter, gave it to our boss and refused to work with that crapware.  She returned the software to MS and after a lot of hassle got a refund.  She was so angry with MS after all that she told us she would never buy their software again.  We talked to Sun, got Star Office and everything was fine.  Seven months later we got new computers and installed Soalris on all of them.  We have never been so productive as we are now.  With Solaris and Star Office we finish our work early, make more money and actually have free time enough to learn Japanese now.</p><p>Oh, and forcing people who don't care enough about this site to post as Anonymous Coward is pretty arrogant of you all.  This is exactly the kind of attitude that Linux guys show the world that makes others treat Linux like Aids.  Grow up please.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used MS Office for years , the best version in my opinion being 2003 .
Sure , I had Star Office on the side and it was always better but everyone else insisted that I give the .doc files .
Then the ribbon and 2007 come along .
Now it might have been possible that I could have eventually gotten along with the ribbon , maybe .
However it was the overall greed of MS that finally pushed me away .
I work at a company in Japan where we have people from more than 25 different countries , who all speak a different native language working in the same office .
That said , English was the language of the office , not Japanese .
Our Japanese boss knew that the second she walked through our door , she had to speak English or not be understood .
So what does MS do , they sell JAPANESE MS office 2007 to the company as the upgrade instead of the English version.What really pissed us off more than suddenly finding Japanese MS Office on our computers was the fact that the English is in there , we just ca n't unlock it .
So we are stuck looking at the ribbon in Japanese not knowing what any of the kanji mean .
Even the guys who could speak some Japanese could not read Kanji , it is hard .
Even some of the Japanese staff did not know what some of that kanji meant .
They thought it was the Chinese version .
We looked into getting the language packs , even into paying $ 300 a pop just to be able to get back to work .
Well , MS loves the rest of the world but they apparently English speakers who live in Japan because we did not even have the option of buying the language packs .
Instead we would need to order the FULL PRODUCT again in English , despite the fact that English was already in the program we had , we just needed to unlock it .
Anyone else in the entire world can order those stupid language packs but we ca n't because we live in Japan.So we took a step back .
We were not about to use this crap .
It would have been trouble enough to learn to use the ribbon in English and now we had to learn to use it in Japanese .
We all signed a letter , gave it to our boss and refused to work with that crapware .
She returned the software to MS and after a lot of hassle got a refund .
She was so angry with MS after all that she told us she would never buy their software again .
We talked to Sun , got Star Office and everything was fine .
Seven months later we got new computers and installed Soalris on all of them .
We have never been so productive as we are now .
With Solaris and Star Office we finish our work early , make more money and actually have free time enough to learn Japanese now.Oh , and forcing people who do n't care enough about this site to post as Anonymous Coward is pretty arrogant of you all .
This is exactly the kind of attitude that Linux guys show the world that makes others treat Linux like Aids .
Grow up please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used MS Office for years, the best version in my opinion being 2003.
Sure, I had Star Office on the side and it was always better but everyone else insisted that I give the .doc files.
Then the ribbon and 2007 come along.
Now it might have been possible that I could have eventually gotten along with the ribbon, maybe.
However it was the overall greed of MS that finally pushed me away.
I work at a company in Japan where we have people from more than 25 different countries, who all speak a different native language working in the same office.
That said, English was the language of the office, not Japanese.
Our Japanese boss knew that the second she walked through our door, she had to speak English or not be understood.
So what does MS do, they sell JAPANESE MS office 2007 to the company as the upgrade instead of the English version.What really pissed us off more than suddenly finding Japanese MS Office on our computers was the fact that the English is in there, we just can't unlock it.
So we are stuck looking at the ribbon in Japanese not knowing what any of the kanji mean.
Even the guys who could speak some Japanese could not read Kanji, it is hard.
Even some of the Japanese staff did not know what some of that kanji meant.
They thought it was the Chinese version.
We looked into getting the language packs, even into paying $300 a pop just to be able to get back to work.
Well, MS loves the rest of the world but they apparently English speakers who live in Japan because we did not even have the option of buying the language packs.
Instead we would need to order the FULL PRODUCT again in English, despite the fact that English was already in the program we had, we just needed to unlock it.
Anyone else in the entire world can order those stupid language packs but we can't because we live in Japan.So we took a step back.
We were not about to use this crap.
It would have been trouble enough to learn to use the ribbon in English and now we had to learn to use it in Japanese.
We all signed a letter, gave it to our boss and refused to work with that crapware.
She returned the software to MS and after a lot of hassle got a refund.
She was so angry with MS after all that she told us she would never buy their software again.
We talked to Sun, got Star Office and everything was fine.
Seven months later we got new computers and installed Soalris on all of them.
We have never been so productive as we are now.
With Solaris and Star Office we finish our work early, make more money and actually have free time enough to learn Japanese now.Oh, and forcing people who don't care enough about this site to post as Anonymous Coward is pretty arrogant of you all.
This is exactly the kind of attitude that Linux guys show the world that makes others treat Linux like Aids.
Grow up please.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28684309</id>
	<title>Re:ribbons</title>
	<author>shermo</author>
	<datestamp>1247488320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The ribbon is about the only thing that office 2007 does right.</p><p>I've recently upgraded to 2003 so my macros which use solver don't crash Excel every time I use them.</p><p>(Legacy issues, I wouldn't build anything in Excel from scratch)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ribbon is about the only thing that office 2007 does right.I 've recently upgraded to 2003 so my macros which use solver do n't crash Excel every time I use them .
( Legacy issues , I would n't build anything in Excel from scratch )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ribbon is about the only thing that office 2007 does right.I've recently upgraded to 2003 so my macros which use solver don't crash Excel every time I use them.
(Legacy issues, I wouldn't build anything in Excel from scratch)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680331</id>
	<title>Re:The last good version of Microsoft Word</title>
	<author>Ohio Calvinist</author>
	<datestamp>1247513220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because then you've got literally hundreds of "versions" to maintain within the organization by hundreds of vendors that may be incompatible with one another with some needed to recieve documents from suppliers and/or customers. We already get support issues because user "A"'s copy of the employee popsicle day flyer doesn't render the same as user "B"'s copy. Imagine if core-functionality was dependant on having the right mish-mash of DLLs or extenions installed. From a security perspective plugins also add more attack vectors and if you look at Firefox as the example, even minor version updates can break them, which is not OK for day-to-day productivity software. What makes it tolerable on FF is that even if you disable all of them, it still does what it was designed to do-- browse web pages.<br> <br>
Like browsers, they are made to meet the majority of the needs for the majority of users doing what it was designed to do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because then you 've got literally hundreds of " versions " to maintain within the organization by hundreds of vendors that may be incompatible with one another with some needed to recieve documents from suppliers and/or customers .
We already get support issues because user " A " 's copy of the employee popsicle day flyer does n't render the same as user " B " 's copy .
Imagine if core-functionality was dependant on having the right mish-mash of DLLs or extenions installed .
From a security perspective plugins also add more attack vectors and if you look at Firefox as the example , even minor version updates can break them , which is not OK for day-to-day productivity software .
What makes it tolerable on FF is that even if you disable all of them , it still does what it was designed to do-- browse web pages .
Like browsers , they are made to meet the majority of the needs for the majority of users doing what it was designed to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because then you've got literally hundreds of "versions" to maintain within the organization by hundreds of vendors that may be incompatible with one another with some needed to recieve documents from suppliers and/or customers.
We already get support issues because user "A"'s copy of the employee popsicle day flyer doesn't render the same as user "B"'s copy.
Imagine if core-functionality was dependant on having the right mish-mash of DLLs or extenions installed.
From a security perspective plugins also add more attack vectors and if you look at Firefox as the example, even minor version updates can break them, which is not OK for day-to-day productivity software.
What makes it tolerable on FF is that even if you disable all of them, it still does what it was designed to do-- browse web pages.
Like browsers, they are made to meet the majority of the needs for the majority of users doing what it was designed to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678913</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679087</id>
	<title>Not so surprising</title>
	<author>Drakkenmensch</author>
	<datestamp>1247509200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is anyone else thinking that we may not have seen this early preview if it hadn't been for last week's announcement from Google of the upcoming Chrome OS, twisting Microsoft's arm into announcing <i>something</i>, anything at all?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is anyone else thinking that we may not have seen this early preview if it had n't been for last week 's announcement from Google of the upcoming Chrome OS , twisting Microsoft 's arm into announcing something , anything at all ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is anyone else thinking that we may not have seen this early preview if it hadn't been for last week's announcement from Google of the upcoming Chrome OS, twisting Microsoft's arm into announcing something, anything at all?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28682957</id>
	<title>Re:Memo to Microsoft: Leave it alone</title>
	<author>michael\_cain</author>
	<datestamp>1247480940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm an old grumpy guy, but am still looking for at least two features.  Have they managed to put floating displays in this version?  How about intelligent vertical white space, that gets suppressed as being unnecessary at the top of a column or page?  Stuff should start at exactly the same place at the top of each page or column (excepting possibly the first page).  And with the exception of a handful of cases involving the end of sections, there should never be more than a couple of blank lines at the bottom of a page.  Fill the pages intelligently for me, please.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm an old grumpy guy , but am still looking for at least two features .
Have they managed to put floating displays in this version ?
How about intelligent vertical white space , that gets suppressed as being unnecessary at the top of a column or page ?
Stuff should start at exactly the same place at the top of each page or column ( excepting possibly the first page ) .
And with the exception of a handful of cases involving the end of sections , there should never be more than a couple of blank lines at the bottom of a page .
Fill the pages intelligently for me , please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm an old grumpy guy, but am still looking for at least two features.
Have they managed to put floating displays in this version?
How about intelligent vertical white space, that gets suppressed as being unnecessary at the top of a column or page?
Stuff should start at exactly the same place at the top of each page or column (excepting possibly the first page).
And with the exception of a handful of cases involving the end of sections, there should never be more than a couple of blank lines at the bottom of a page.
Fill the pages intelligently for me, please.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28688261</id>
	<title>Re:'Conversation View' == Threaded mail?</title>
	<author>xtracto</author>
	<datestamp>1247568780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>View -&gt; Arrange By -&gt; Conversation on OLK2003 is essentially the same as GMail mode, for example.</p></div><p>I use Outlook every day in my work (and I have it open right now). I did what you indicated and the "conversation" view does not look *anything* like Google's view.</p><p>For one, the messages I sent are not displayed (as they are "saved" in the SentItems folder), second, the messages from the same "conversation" are in shown in a flat list (i.e. wihtout bleeding). Moreover, you can not order by any other column once you choose "conversation" view.<br>In summary, it sucks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>View - &gt; Arrange By - &gt; Conversation on OLK2003 is essentially the same as GMail mode , for example.I use Outlook every day in my work ( and I have it open right now ) .
I did what you indicated and the " conversation " view does not look * anything * like Google 's view.For one , the messages I sent are not displayed ( as they are " saved " in the SentItems folder ) , second , the messages from the same " conversation " are in shown in a flat list ( i.e .
wihtout bleeding ) .
Moreover , you can not order by any other column once you choose " conversation " view.In summary , it sucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>View -&gt; Arrange By -&gt; Conversation on OLK2003 is essentially the same as GMail mode, for example.I use Outlook every day in my work (and I have it open right now).
I did what you indicated and the "conversation" view does not look *anything* like Google's view.For one, the messages I sent are not displayed (as they are "saved" in the SentItems folder), second, the messages from the same "conversation" are in shown in a flat list (i.e.
wihtout bleeding).
Moreover, you can not order by any other column once you choose "conversation" view.In summary, it sucks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679167</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679177</id>
	<title>Re:Memo to Microsoft: Leave it alone</title>
	<author>fred80</author>
	<datestamp>1247509560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree. It's aggravating in the extreme to have to learn a new interface for an app that I've been using everyday for 5 years and know inside and out. I actually stopped upgrading MS Office and have been using Open Office ever since MS gave the big O its last interfacelift. On a weekly basis, I use my Mac desktop at the office and my Linux and Windows laptops on the go for meetings and presentations. It's nice to have an app that works and looks the same across all 3 platforms. Also, it's great for VM's too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
It 's aggravating in the extreme to have to learn a new interface for an app that I 've been using everyday for 5 years and know inside and out .
I actually stopped upgrading MS Office and have been using Open Office ever since MS gave the big O its last interfacelift .
On a weekly basis , I use my Mac desktop at the office and my Linux and Windows laptops on the go for meetings and presentations .
It 's nice to have an app that works and looks the same across all 3 platforms .
Also , it 's great for VM 's too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
It's aggravating in the extreme to have to learn a new interface for an app that I've been using everyday for 5 years and know inside and out.
I actually stopped upgrading MS Office and have been using Open Office ever since MS gave the big O its last interfacelift.
On a weekly basis, I use my Mac desktop at the office and my Linux and Windows laptops on the go for meetings and presentations.
It's nice to have an app that works and looks the same across all 3 platforms.
Also, it's great for VM's too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679485</id>
	<title>Re:A lot of effort and money</title>
	<author>Merdalors</author>
	<datestamp>1247510580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I'm not a big fan of the latest versions of Office, I have yet to see a Web-based, on-line program that can handle two or three hundred-page technical documents, with automatic paragraph numbering, indices, cross-referencing, style formats, redlining, robust tables, etc. Heck even WordPerfect buggers up RTF.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I 'm not a big fan of the latest versions of Office , I have yet to see a Web-based , on-line program that can handle two or three hundred-page technical documents , with automatic paragraph numbering , indices , cross-referencing , style formats , redlining , robust tables , etc .
Heck even WordPerfect buggers up RTF .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I'm not a big fan of the latest versions of Office, I have yet to see a Web-based, on-line program that can handle two or three hundred-page technical documents, with automatic paragraph numbering, indices, cross-referencing, style formats, redlining, robust tables, etc.
Heck even WordPerfect buggers up RTF.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679169</id>
	<title>Re:ODF</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247509500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm kind of curious.  What makes Microsoft's version of ODF any worse than anyone elses?  Or for that matter, what makes OOo's any better?  Just because OOo's non-standard spreadsheet formula is used more commonly doesn't make it better.</p><p>Until ODF 1.2 is out, it's just a bunch of he-said-she-said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm kind of curious .
What makes Microsoft 's version of ODF any worse than anyone elses ?
Or for that matter , what makes OOo 's any better ?
Just because OOo 's non-standard spreadsheet formula is used more commonly does n't make it better.Until ODF 1.2 is out , it 's just a bunch of he-said-she-said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm kind of curious.
What makes Microsoft's version of ODF any worse than anyone elses?
Or for that matter, what makes OOo's any better?
Just because OOo's non-standard spreadsheet formula is used more commonly doesn't make it better.Until ODF 1.2 is out, it's just a bunch of he-said-she-said.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679945</id>
	<title>Re:Office on Linux?</title>
	<author>therealmorris</author>
	<datestamp>1247511960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft have said (in the video <a href="http://www.istartedsomething.com/20090713/office-2010-revealed-in-detail-via-microsoft-videos/" title="istartedsomething.com" rel="nofollow">here</a> [istartedsomething.com] and on <a href="http://community.winsupersite.com/blogs/paul/archive/2009/07/13/waiting-for-the-office-web-applications-keep-waiting.aspx" title="winsupersite.com" rel="nofollow">here</a> [winsupersite.com]) it supports Firefox and Safari (so presumably Chrome) just as well as IE. No mention of Opera but I see no reason as to why it wouldn't work. I think the video mentions that it works on Macs too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft have said ( in the video here [ istartedsomething.com ] and on here [ winsupersite.com ] ) it supports Firefox and Safari ( so presumably Chrome ) just as well as IE .
No mention of Opera but I see no reason as to why it would n't work .
I think the video mentions that it works on Macs too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft have said (in the video here [istartedsomething.com] and on here [winsupersite.com]) it supports Firefox and Safari (so presumably Chrome) just as well as IE.
No mention of Opera but I see no reason as to why it wouldn't work.
I think the video mentions that it works on Macs too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679077</id>
	<title>Re:A lot of effort and money</title>
	<author>Amazing Quantum Man</author>
	<datestamp>1247509200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod parent -1 incredibly naive</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent -1 incredibly naive</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent -1 incredibly naive</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28683697</id>
	<title>Translation from MS marketing speak</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247484660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the article</p><p><div class="quote"><p>However, Adams says that "customers will not have to accept loss of formatting, loss of content, or loss of fidelity" when they edit documents in the online applications.</p></div><p>Translation:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>However, Adams says that "customers will have to accept loss of formatting, loss of content, or loss of fidelity" when they edit documents in the online applications.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the articleHowever , Adams says that " customers will not have to accept loss of formatting , loss of content , or loss of fidelity " when they edit documents in the online applications.Translation : However , Adams says that " customers will have to accept loss of formatting , loss of content , or loss of fidelity " when they edit documents in the online applications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the articleHowever, Adams says that "customers will not have to accept loss of formatting, loss of content, or loss of fidelity" when they edit documents in the online applications.Translation:However, Adams says that "customers will have to accept loss of formatting, loss of content, or loss of fidelity" when they edit documents in the online applications.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28682947</id>
	<title>Banging down the door.</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1247480880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>...is the new Clippy. If you want people to use Office, you need to get rid of it.</i> <p>
The geek hasn't got a clue - and you can't slam one into his head with a twenty-pound sledge.</p><p>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/software/229535" title="amazon.com">Software Best Sellers In Business</a> [amazon.com] [Updated Hourly]</p><p>
1 MS Office Home &amp; Student 2007. 931 Days In The Top 100.<br>4 MS Office Home &amp; Student 2008. - Mac. 609 Days<br>7 Outlook 2007. 930 Days<br>17 MS Office Small Business 2007 Full Version. 400 Days<br>18 MS Office Pro 2007 Full Version. 494 Days<br>19 MS Office Standard 2007 Full Version. 916 Days.<br>23 MS Office Pro 2007 Upgrade. 930 Days.<br>24 MS Office Small Business 2007 Upgrade. 575 Days.</p><p>
26 of the top 100 Business Best Sellers in Software at Amazon are MS Office 2007 products.</p><p>  WordPerfect X4 Home&amp;Student at $70 comes in at #60.<br> 50 Days In the The Top 100.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...is the new Clippy .
If you want people to use Office , you need to get rid of it .
The geek has n't got a clue - and you ca n't slam one into his head with a twenty-pound sledge .
Software Best Sellers In Business [ amazon.com ] [ Updated Hourly ] 1 MS Office Home &amp; Student 2007 .
931 Days In The Top 100.4 MS Office Home &amp; Student 2008 .
- Mac .
609 Days7 Outlook 2007 .
930 Days17 MS Office Small Business 2007 Full Version .
400 Days18 MS Office Pro 2007 Full Version .
494 Days19 MS Office Standard 2007 Full Version .
916 Days.23 MS Office Pro 2007 Upgrade .
930 Days.24 MS Office Small Business 2007 Upgrade .
575 Days .
26 of the top 100 Business Best Sellers in Software at Amazon are MS Office 2007 products .
WordPerfect X4 Home&amp;Student at $ 70 comes in at # 60 .
50 Days In the The Top 100 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is the new Clippy.
If you want people to use Office, you need to get rid of it.
The geek hasn't got a clue - and you can't slam one into his head with a twenty-pound sledge.
Software Best Sellers In Business [amazon.com] [Updated Hourly]
1 MS Office Home &amp; Student 2007.
931 Days In The Top 100.4 MS Office Home &amp; Student 2008.
- Mac.
609 Days7 Outlook 2007.
930 Days17 MS Office Small Business 2007 Full Version.
400 Days18 MS Office Pro 2007 Full Version.
494 Days19 MS Office Standard 2007 Full Version.
916 Days.23 MS Office Pro 2007 Upgrade.
930 Days.24 MS Office Small Business 2007 Upgrade.
575 Days.
26 of the top 100 Business Best Sellers in Software at Amazon are MS Office 2007 products.
WordPerfect X4 Home&amp;Student at $70 comes in at #60.
50 Days In the The Top 100.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678869</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678943</id>
	<title>Re:ribbons</title>
	<author>PainKilleR-CE</author>
	<datestamp>1247508780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I have to use Office, I prefer to use 2007, as it makes the options much more accessible than the default menus and toolbars in previous versions.</p><p>That being said, it's pretty rare that I have to use Office, which may have a lot to do with my preference, since I don't spend time customizing my menus and have to spend a lot of time looking for the options I want on older versions. My wife's actually much more familiar with the Office apps (especially Excel), and it took her a couple of months to get accustomed to the 2007 interface, but eventually it grew on her.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I have to use Office , I prefer to use 2007 , as it makes the options much more accessible than the default menus and toolbars in previous versions.That being said , it 's pretty rare that I have to use Office , which may have a lot to do with my preference , since I do n't spend time customizing my menus and have to spend a lot of time looking for the options I want on older versions .
My wife 's actually much more familiar with the Office apps ( especially Excel ) , and it took her a couple of months to get accustomed to the 2007 interface , but eventually it grew on her .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I have to use Office, I prefer to use 2007, as it makes the options much more accessible than the default menus and toolbars in previous versions.That being said, it's pretty rare that I have to use Office, which may have a lot to do with my preference, since I don't spend time customizing my menus and have to spend a lot of time looking for the options I want on older versions.
My wife's actually much more familiar with the Office apps (especially Excel), and it took her a couple of months to get accustomed to the 2007 interface, but eventually it grew on her.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679843</id>
	<title>Re:A lot of effort and money</title>
	<author>mkrup99</author>
	<datestamp>1247511600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can see the "Funny" rating, but for the life of me I cannot understand how this can be modded anywhere above zero. Clearly you have never held a real job... or attended any classes at a legitimate school, for that matter.

This comment made me feel like this: <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/files/2008/09/thestupiditburns.jpg" title="discovermagazine.com" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/files/2008/09/thestupiditburns.jpg</a> [discovermagazine.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see the " Funny " rating , but for the life of me I can not understand how this can be modded anywhere above zero .
Clearly you have never held a real job... or attended any classes at a legitimate school , for that matter .
This comment made me feel like this : http : //blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/files/2008/09/thestupiditburns.jpg [ discovermagazine.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see the "Funny" rating, but for the life of me I cannot understand how this can be modded anywhere above zero.
Clearly you have never held a real job... or attended any classes at a legitimate school, for that matter.
This comment made me feel like this: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/files/2008/09/thestupiditburns.jpg [discovermagazine.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28684273</id>
	<title>Re:WordPerfect 5.1</title>
	<author>sasha328</author>
	<datestamp>1247488080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amen to that.</p><p>Damn you Corel for destroying a perfectly good and lean product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amen to that.Damn you Corel for destroying a perfectly good and lean product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amen to that.Damn you Corel for destroying a perfectly good and lean product.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678685</id>
	<title>Not again!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247508000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good Lord, the business hardly deployed Office 2007 with big troubles, we just got used to the new interface absolute madness and yet again more changes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p><p>Will this crazy running for "the new" ever end?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good Lord , the business hardly deployed Office 2007 with big troubles , we just got used to the new interface absolute madness and yet again more changes : ( Will this crazy running for " the new " ever end ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good Lord, the business hardly deployed Office 2007 with big troubles, we just got used to the new interface absolute madness and yet again more changes :(Will this crazy running for "the new" ever end?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678965</id>
	<title>So microsoft should...?</title>
	<author>TheTrollToll</author>
	<datestamp>1247508840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What should they do?  Stop making new versions of their software?  Stop selling updated software?  Why would we want them to stop making progress.  You guys can all keep your office 97's,word perfect 1.0's and your open office's and that's fine. Why criticize a company for something every other software company does?  They are more ripable for their strong-arm and anti-competitive practices than for improving their software.  Yes yes we know you're crusty veterans of software and you think that your opinions matter the most but according to this first report, Office 2010 is indeed an improvement in many ways (despite it requiring more than 256k memory).</htmltext>
<tokenext>What should they do ?
Stop making new versions of their software ?
Stop selling updated software ?
Why would we want them to stop making progress .
You guys can all keep your office 97 's,word perfect 1.0 's and your open office 's and that 's fine .
Why criticize a company for something every other software company does ?
They are more ripable for their strong-arm and anti-competitive practices than for improving their software .
Yes yes we know you 're crusty veterans of software and you think that your opinions matter the most but according to this first report , Office 2010 is indeed an improvement in many ways ( despite it requiring more than 256k memory ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What should they do?
Stop making new versions of their software?
Stop selling updated software?
Why would we want them to stop making progress.
You guys can all keep your office 97's,word perfect 1.0's and your open office's and that's fine.
Why criticize a company for something every other software company does?
They are more ripable for their strong-arm and anti-competitive practices than for improving their software.
Yes yes we know you're crusty veterans of software and you think that your opinions matter the most but according to this first report, Office 2010 is indeed an improvement in many ways (despite it requiring more than 256k memory).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680761</id>
	<title>Re:Good Enough</title>
	<author>gbarules2999</author>
	<datestamp>1247515140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree that it's a start, but I can't see Microsoft ever "dying" outright. All I see is a few pieces of competition, perhaps a few that will grab a few more percentage points of market share from Microsoft every year.<br> <br>The interesting note to watch is what happens when the next generation of computer users comes forward. Teenagers these days know a lot more about computers than their parents do, on average. They understand the difference between Mac and Windows (and a heck of a lot know about Ubuntu - more than you might think), and can use their computers in fairly efficient ways. Will they be more willing to adapt and allow the market to morph? Considering that the market nowadays panders to the lowest common denominator (people who think "Windows" is a synonym with "computer") the fundamental shift in the next decade or two is when that lowest common denominator starts to rise. As computers become more integral to the average user's life, the more they'll bother to understand it.<br> <br>Car analogy: while most people don't quite understand the entire workings of a car, they know enough to keep it running. This is not true for a hell of a lot of computer users, but when and how will this change?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that it 's a start , but I ca n't see Microsoft ever " dying " outright .
All I see is a few pieces of competition , perhaps a few that will grab a few more percentage points of market share from Microsoft every year .
The interesting note to watch is what happens when the next generation of computer users comes forward .
Teenagers these days know a lot more about computers than their parents do , on average .
They understand the difference between Mac and Windows ( and a heck of a lot know about Ubuntu - more than you might think ) , and can use their computers in fairly efficient ways .
Will they be more willing to adapt and allow the market to morph ?
Considering that the market nowadays panders to the lowest common denominator ( people who think " Windows " is a synonym with " computer " ) the fundamental shift in the next decade or two is when that lowest common denominator starts to rise .
As computers become more integral to the average user 's life , the more they 'll bother to understand it .
Car analogy : while most people do n't quite understand the entire workings of a car , they know enough to keep it running .
This is not true for a hell of a lot of computer users , but when and how will this change ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that it's a start, but I can't see Microsoft ever "dying" outright.
All I see is a few pieces of competition, perhaps a few that will grab a few more percentage points of market share from Microsoft every year.
The interesting note to watch is what happens when the next generation of computer users comes forward.
Teenagers these days know a lot more about computers than their parents do, on average.
They understand the difference between Mac and Windows (and a heck of a lot know about Ubuntu - more than you might think), and can use their computers in fairly efficient ways.
Will they be more willing to adapt and allow the market to morph?
Considering that the market nowadays panders to the lowest common denominator (people who think "Windows" is a synonym with "computer") the fundamental shift in the next decade or two is when that lowest common denominator starts to rise.
As computers become more integral to the average user's life, the more they'll bother to understand it.
Car analogy: while most people don't quite understand the entire workings of a car, they know enough to keep it running.
This is not true for a hell of a lot of computer users, but when and how will this change?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679257</id>
	<title>Re:Memo to Microsoft: Leave it alone</title>
	<author>oodaloop</author>
	<datestamp>1247509860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>My apologies.  I didn't realize I strayed onto your lawn.  I will promptly remove myself forthwith.  Good day, sir!</htmltext>
<tokenext>My apologies .
I did n't realize I strayed onto your lawn .
I will promptly remove myself forthwith .
Good day , sir !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My apologies.
I didn't realize I strayed onto your lawn.
I will promptly remove myself forthwith.
Good day, sir!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28687887</id>
	<title>Re:ribbons</title>
	<author>clickety6</author>
	<datestamp>1247564400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And 85\% couldn't find the damn print option hidden under the shiny round globe thing in the corner...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And 85 \ % could n't find the damn print option hidden under the shiny round globe thing in the corner.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And 85\% couldn't find the damn print option hidden under the shiny round globe thing in the corner...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680205</id>
	<title>Re:Three Reasons to Hate the Ribbon</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1247512800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>4. It elevates all commands, even the most little used, to equal status, thus kicking the concept of multiple, user customizable toolbars right in the nads.</htmltext>
<tokenext>4 .
It elevates all commands , even the most little used , to equal status , thus kicking the concept of multiple , user customizable toolbars right in the nads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>4.
It elevates all commands, even the most little used, to equal status, thus kicking the concept of multiple, user customizable toolbars right in the nads.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678497</id>
	<title>who uses it anyway?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247507400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>not me</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>not me</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not me</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680317</id>
	<title>Re:Three Reasons to Hate the Ribbon</title>
	<author>marsu\_k</author>
	<datestamp>1247513160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1: It takes away valuable vertical screen real estate and cannot be repositioned to less valuable side areas.</p></div><p>Word! (pun not intended) I'm typing this on a netbook with a 1024x600 screen, and having "the Ribbon" visible would use probably most of it. Yes, this (thankfully) isn't my only/main computer, but I like to write documents on the go every now and then.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 : It takes away valuable vertical screen real estate and can not be repositioned to less valuable side areas.Word !
( pun not intended ) I 'm typing this on a netbook with a 1024x600 screen , and having " the Ribbon " visible would use probably most of it .
Yes , this ( thankfully ) is n't my only/main computer , but I like to write documents on the go every now and then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1: It takes away valuable vertical screen real estate and cannot be repositioned to less valuable side areas.Word!
(pun not intended) I'm typing this on a netbook with a 1024x600 screen, and having "the Ribbon" visible would use probably most of it.
Yes, this (thankfully) isn't my only/main computer, but I like to write documents on the go every now and then.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678891</id>
	<title>Re:ODF</title>
	<author>nametaken</author>
	<datestamp>1247508600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Save-As-PDF works quite well for us, particularly since it's a compromise somewhere between the crappy third-party app option and the thousands of dollars that Adobe's products cost us in years past.</p><p>Outlook 2007's rendering, OTOH, makes me want to kill people and break things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Save-As-PDF works quite well for us , particularly since it 's a compromise somewhere between the crappy third-party app option and the thousands of dollars that Adobe 's products cost us in years past.Outlook 2007 's rendering , OTOH , makes me want to kill people and break things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Save-As-PDF works quite well for us, particularly since it's a compromise somewhere between the crappy third-party app option and the thousands of dollars that Adobe's products cost us in years past.Outlook 2007's rendering, OTOH, makes me want to kill people and break things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678913</id>
	<title>The last good version of Microsoft Word</title>
	<author>XxtraLarGe</author>
	<datestamp>1247508720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The last good version of Microsoft Word was Word 5.1 for the Mac, and that was over 17 years ago! They should stop throwing all the garbage in there and just make it extensible with plug-ins like Photoshop or a web browser.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The last good version of Microsoft Word was Word 5.1 for the Mac , and that was over 17 years ago !
They should stop throwing all the garbage in there and just make it extensible with plug-ins like Photoshop or a web browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The last good version of Microsoft Word was Word 5.1 for the Mac, and that was over 17 years ago!
They should stop throwing all the garbage in there and just make it extensible with plug-ins like Photoshop or a web browser.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28682979</id>
	<title>Re:Three Reasons to Hate the Ribbon</title>
	<author>cbhacking</author>
	<datestamp>1247481000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You realize you can hide the ribbon, right? Double-click on the active tab. Single-click a tab to make it reappear until you click an option (like a menu) or double-click to make it reappear permanently (until you double-click again).<br>WTF do you mean, it "changes"? If you click on a picture, sure, a picture tab will appear on the ribbon... but the rest of the ribbon is still there, rigth where it was.<br>Part of me bemoans the loss of customizability on principle, the rest of me accepts that I never changed more than one or two things and that the new interface is better... and besides, the menu <b>wasn't</b> customizable. The toolbars were, but the ribbon is meant to replace both toolbar and menu. In any case, there is still a fully user-configurable toolbar, called the Quick Access bar, above the ribbon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You realize you can hide the ribbon , right ?
Double-click on the active tab .
Single-click a tab to make it reappear until you click an option ( like a menu ) or double-click to make it reappear permanently ( until you double-click again ) .WTF do you mean , it " changes " ?
If you click on a picture , sure , a picture tab will appear on the ribbon... but the rest of the ribbon is still there , rigth where it was.Part of me bemoans the loss of customizability on principle , the rest of me accepts that I never changed more than one or two things and that the new interface is better... and besides , the menu was n't customizable .
The toolbars were , but the ribbon is meant to replace both toolbar and menu .
In any case , there is still a fully user-configurable toolbar , called the Quick Access bar , above the ribbon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You realize you can hide the ribbon, right?
Double-click on the active tab.
Single-click a tab to make it reappear until you click an option (like a menu) or double-click to make it reappear permanently (until you double-click again).WTF do you mean, it "changes"?
If you click on a picture, sure, a picture tab will appear on the ribbon... but the rest of the ribbon is still there, rigth where it was.Part of me bemoans the loss of customizability on principle, the rest of me accepts that I never changed more than one or two things and that the new interface is better... and besides, the menu wasn't customizable.
The toolbars were, but the ribbon is meant to replace both toolbar and menu.
In any case, there is still a fully user-configurable toolbar, called the Quick Access bar, above the ribbon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679059</id>
	<title>Re:Memo to Microsoft: Leave it alone</title>
	<author>avandesande</author>
	<datestamp>1247509140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Documentation and training are a huge part of M$ business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Documentation and training are a huge part of M $ business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Documentation and training are a huge part of M$ business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679085</id>
	<title>Re:'Conversation View' == Threaded mail?</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1247509200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The ability to group messages by conversation has been in Outlook for as long as I've been using it (which is since 2003) - probably longer, though, as Outlook Express had it since the first version that came with Win98. I'm not sure how this is new by any measure...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ability to group messages by conversation has been in Outlook for as long as I 've been using it ( which is since 2003 ) - probably longer , though , as Outlook Express had it since the first version that came with Win98 .
I 'm not sure how this is new by any measure.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ability to group messages by conversation has been in Outlook for as long as I've been using it (which is since 2003) - probably longer, though, as Outlook Express had it since the first version that came with Win98.
I'm not sure how this is new by any measure...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680035</id>
	<title>Re:WordPerfect 5.1</title>
	<author>adonoman</author>
	<datestamp>1247512200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So install it and quit complaining.  It's easy enough to do under XP: <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/~em36/wpdos/windowsxp.html" title="columbia.edu">http://www.columbia.edu/~em36/wpdos/windowsxp.html</a> [columbia.edu]   I have an old 286 laptop that the kids play with that has wp51 installed and as nice as it was 20 years ago (menus! woo-hoo!), the lack of copy-and paste between apps, an OS-based printer driver system, etc... makes it just that much more of an effort to use.   Stick me in front of vi for coding anyday, but when I want to quickly create a document to print out that looks nice, I'll go with a modern word processor.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So install it and quit complaining .
It 's easy enough to do under XP : http : //www.columbia.edu/ ~ em36/wpdos/windowsxp.html [ columbia.edu ] I have an old 286 laptop that the kids play with that has wp51 installed and as nice as it was 20 years ago ( menus !
woo-hoo ! ) , the lack of copy-and paste between apps , an OS-based printer driver system , etc... makes it just that much more of an effort to use .
Stick me in front of vi for coding anyday , but when I want to quickly create a document to print out that looks nice , I 'll go with a modern word processor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So install it and quit complaining.
It's easy enough to do under XP: http://www.columbia.edu/~em36/wpdos/windowsxp.html [columbia.edu]   I have an old 286 laptop that the kids play with that has wp51 installed and as nice as it was 20 years ago (menus!
woo-hoo!), the lack of copy-and paste between apps, an OS-based printer driver system, etc... makes it just that much more of an effort to use.
Stick me in front of vi for coding anyday, but when I want to quickly create a document to print out that looks nice, I'll go with a modern word processor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679561</id>
	<title>Re:Not so surprising</title>
	<author>Aphonia</author>
	<datestamp>1247510760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except for the fact that this preview was announced in May [http://blogs.msdn.com/excel/archive/2009/05/12/microsoft-office-2010-technical-preview.aspx] and Microsoft has had sharepoint and other things. And ChromeOS being a little netbook OS to just browse the internets when people do so much more with Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except for the fact that this preview was announced in May [ http : //blogs.msdn.com/excel/archive/2009/05/12/microsoft-office-2010-technical-preview.aspx ] and Microsoft has had sharepoint and other things .
And ChromeOS being a little netbook OS to just browse the internets when people do so much more with Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except for the fact that this preview was announced in May [http://blogs.msdn.com/excel/archive/2009/05/12/microsoft-office-2010-technical-preview.aspx] and Microsoft has had sharepoint and other things.
And ChromeOS being a little netbook OS to just browse the internets when people do so much more with Windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28684447</id>
	<title>Re:WordPerfect 5.1</title>
	<author>Panoptes</author>
	<datestamp>1247489160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I couldn't agree more. In its day WP 5.1 was all I needed for both private and professional writing. My current word processor is TextPad because it's the words that are important, not a pot-pourri of fancy layout and formatting. I want to focus on what I'm writing without meandering through menus, writhing with ribbons and being distracted by the myriad arty-farty baubles that pass for a user interface.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I could n't agree more .
In its day WP 5.1 was all I needed for both private and professional writing .
My current word processor is TextPad because it 's the words that are important , not a pot-pourri of fancy layout and formatting .
I want to focus on what I 'm writing without meandering through menus , writhing with ribbons and being distracted by the myriad arty-farty baubles that pass for a user interface .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I couldn't agree more.
In its day WP 5.1 was all I needed for both private and professional writing.
My current word processor is TextPad because it's the words that are important, not a pot-pourri of fancy layout and formatting.
I want to focus on what I'm writing without meandering through menus, writhing with ribbons and being distracted by the myriad arty-farty baubles that pass for a user interface.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678759</id>
	<title>'Conversation View' == Threaded mail?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247508240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The first time I ever used a threaded message client was WinVN newsreader way back in the wilds of 1993. The first email reader I used that was threaded was Eudora... pre-2000. I'm very sure that tin supported threads before I ever saw an ethernet cable.</p><p>So here it is 2009, and Microsoft is just NOW including a threaded view in Outlook.</p><p>Yeah. Way to innovate there, Redmon. Congratulations on entering the 1990s!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first time I ever used a threaded message client was WinVN newsreader way back in the wilds of 1993 .
The first email reader I used that was threaded was Eudora... pre-2000. I 'm very sure that tin supported threads before I ever saw an ethernet cable.So here it is 2009 , and Microsoft is just NOW including a threaded view in Outlook.Yeah .
Way to innovate there , Redmon .
Congratulations on entering the 1990s !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first time I ever used a threaded message client was WinVN newsreader way back in the wilds of 1993.
The first email reader I used that was threaded was Eudora... pre-2000. I'm very sure that tin supported threads before I ever saw an ethernet cable.So here it is 2009, and Microsoft is just NOW including a threaded view in Outlook.Yeah.
Way to innovate there, Redmon.
Congratulations on entering the 1990s!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678681</id>
	<title>ribbons</title>
	<author>je ne sais quoi</author>
	<datestamp>1247508000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>From TFA:<blockquote><div><p>Forrester Research surveys have shown that the percentage of people who liked the Ribbon interface in Office 2007 was in the mid to high 80s while the percentage who found it "significantly more difficult" to use was 2.4\%.</p></div></blockquote><p>

I find that hard to believe.  How many of those people they asked actually used office as a mission critical application in their day to day use?  In my admittedly small sample, nobody that I work with at all enjoys using the ribbons, which is about 5 that I have spoken to about it.  The majority of people have Office 2003 put on instead, only those who are reluctant to change software on their computers leave it on.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : Forrester Research surveys have shown that the percentage of people who liked the Ribbon interface in Office 2007 was in the mid to high 80s while the percentage who found it " significantly more difficult " to use was 2.4 \ % .
I find that hard to believe .
How many of those people they asked actually used office as a mission critical application in their day to day use ?
In my admittedly small sample , nobody that I work with at all enjoys using the ribbons , which is about 5 that I have spoken to about it .
The majority of people have Office 2003 put on instead , only those who are reluctant to change software on their computers leave it on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:Forrester Research surveys have shown that the percentage of people who liked the Ribbon interface in Office 2007 was in the mid to high 80s while the percentage who found it "significantly more difficult" to use was 2.4\%.
I find that hard to believe.
How many of those people they asked actually used office as a mission critical application in their day to day use?
In my admittedly small sample, nobody that I work with at all enjoys using the ribbons, which is about 5 that I have spoken to about it.
The majority of people have Office 2003 put on instead, only those who are reluctant to change software on their computers leave it on.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679349</id>
	<title>First Question</title>
	<author>Nom du Keyboard</author>
	<datestamp>1247510220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>First Question: Does it run on XP?
<br> <br>Would be the first time that MS has tried to force an OS upgrade.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First Question : Does it run on XP ?
Would be the first time that MS has tried to force an OS upgrade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First Question: Does it run on XP?
Would be the first time that MS has tried to force an OS upgrade.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28685389</id>
	<title>Re:Memo to Microsoft: Leave it alone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247497260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, for the first time in my life, I now understand Excel. Beforehand I just didn't get it. Now that I've used excel 2007, I can now go back to the older excels and work productively (ish) in them!</p><p>It's the new fandangled look that is spooking everyone. Using the ribbon for 10 minutes however shows its strengths. I remember looking through the help a few times looking for the 'action' that I used to make in word. In all cases, it was either in plain sight, OR was logically placed where it should be. A small learning curve.</p><p>If you don't wish to learn, don't use technology. It moves all the time.</p><p>2c</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , for the first time in my life , I now understand Excel .
Beforehand I just did n't get it .
Now that I 've used excel 2007 , I can now go back to the older excels and work productively ( ish ) in them ! It 's the new fandangled look that is spooking everyone .
Using the ribbon for 10 minutes however shows its strengths .
I remember looking through the help a few times looking for the 'action ' that I used to make in word .
In all cases , it was either in plain sight , OR was logically placed where it should be .
A small learning curve.If you do n't wish to learn , do n't use technology .
It moves all the time.2c</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, for the first time in my life, I now understand Excel.
Beforehand I just didn't get it.
Now that I've used excel 2007, I can now go back to the older excels and work productively (ish) in them!It's the new fandangled look that is spooking everyone.
Using the ribbon for 10 minutes however shows its strengths.
I remember looking through the help a few times looking for the 'action' that I used to make in word.
In all cases, it was either in plain sight, OR was logically placed where it should be.
A small learning curve.If you don't wish to learn, don't use technology.
It moves all the time.2c</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28683355</id>
	<title>What's the problem?</title>
	<author>Godwin O'Hitler</author>
	<datestamp>1247482680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use Office 2003 and I'm not intending to stop - because nobody is making me stop.<br>Come on now, folks, let MS do what they like with their new stuff. Why the hell should you care?<br>If you want the new stuff and like it, fine. It won't stop my 6-year old version working, no more than it will stop my 6-year old microwave oven working.</p><p>I've tried the ribbon and rejected it. So what. I still have a decent, intuitive, unencumbered version of Office. Hard luck on those that haven't.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:shrug:</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use Office 2003 and I 'm not intending to stop - because nobody is making me stop.Come on now , folks , let MS do what they like with their new stuff .
Why the hell should you care ? If you want the new stuff and like it , fine .
It wo n't stop my 6-year old version working , no more than it will stop my 6-year old microwave oven working.I 've tried the ribbon and rejected it .
So what .
I still have a decent , intuitive , unencumbered version of Office .
Hard luck on those that have n't .
: shrug :</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use Office 2003 and I'm not intending to stop - because nobody is making me stop.Come on now, folks, let MS do what they like with their new stuff.
Why the hell should you care?If you want the new stuff and like it, fine.
It won't stop my 6-year old version working, no more than it will stop my 6-year old microwave oven working.I've tried the ribbon and rejected it.
So what.
I still have a decent, intuitive, unencumbered version of Office.
Hard luck on those that haven't.
:shrug:</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28683613</id>
	<title>Re:WordPerfect 5.1</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247484180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I remember correct, WP 6.0 was the version with WYSIWYG that drove me away from WordPerfect. I'm a typography nerd and earlier versions could print beautiful document on really crappy printers. The WYSIWYG version could not. Since then there has been a lack of easy to use word processors that can make good typography. LyX is the only one I can think of, but LyX is incredibly buggy and hard to install/customise, and looks fugly without antialiasing and other things people have come to expect.</p><p>I wouldn't say that WP 5.1 have everything I "need". For exemple it would be nice if it had word completion for speedier writing and antialiasing would make it friendlier to my eyes. But when it comes to good typography and ease of use it beats most products today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I remember correct , WP 6.0 was the version with WYSIWYG that drove me away from WordPerfect .
I 'm a typography nerd and earlier versions could print beautiful document on really crappy printers .
The WYSIWYG version could not .
Since then there has been a lack of easy to use word processors that can make good typography .
LyX is the only one I can think of , but LyX is incredibly buggy and hard to install/customise , and looks fugly without antialiasing and other things people have come to expect.I would n't say that WP 5.1 have everything I " need " .
For exemple it would be nice if it had word completion for speedier writing and antialiasing would make it friendlier to my eyes .
But when it comes to good typography and ease of use it beats most products today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I remember correct, WP 6.0 was the version with WYSIWYG that drove me away from WordPerfect.
I'm a typography nerd and earlier versions could print beautiful document on really crappy printers.
The WYSIWYG version could not.
Since then there has been a lack of easy to use word processors that can make good typography.
LyX is the only one I can think of, but LyX is incredibly buggy and hard to install/customise, and looks fugly without antialiasing and other things people have come to expect.I wouldn't say that WP 5.1 have everything I "need".
For exemple it would be nice if it had word completion for speedier writing and antialiasing would make it friendlier to my eyes.
But when it comes to good typography and ease of use it beats most products today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679325</id>
	<title>Re:'Conversation View' == Threaded mail?</title>
	<author>Maniacal</author>
	<datestamp>1247510100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've tried using a threaded view with different email clients over the years and I always switch back.  I don't understand why.   I've spent a lot of time on Outlook so that may be why I could care less about threading.  Maybe it has to do with the fact that the entire thread is appended to the end of each new mail I get in the thread.  That is, unless someone in the chain deliberately doesn't include it in a reply.</p><p>What I have grown to love is the way gmail does threading.  It's like a hybrid between what Outlook does (or doesn't do) and threading.  I have the thread there in case I need it but the message appears at the top of my inbox all the way to the left.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've tried using a threaded view with different email clients over the years and I always switch back .
I do n't understand why .
I 've spent a lot of time on Outlook so that may be why I could care less about threading .
Maybe it has to do with the fact that the entire thread is appended to the end of each new mail I get in the thread .
That is , unless someone in the chain deliberately does n't include it in a reply.What I have grown to love is the way gmail does threading .
It 's like a hybrid between what Outlook does ( or does n't do ) and threading .
I have the thread there in case I need it but the message appears at the top of my inbox all the way to the left .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've tried using a threaded view with different email clients over the years and I always switch back.
I don't understand why.
I've spent a lot of time on Outlook so that may be why I could care less about threading.
Maybe it has to do with the fact that the entire thread is appended to the end of each new mail I get in the thread.
That is, unless someone in the chain deliberately doesn't include it in a reply.What I have grown to love is the way gmail does threading.
It's like a hybrid between what Outlook does (or doesn't do) and threading.
I have the thread there in case I need it but the message appears at the top of my inbox all the way to the left.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678759</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28688287
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678681
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28687887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28681807
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680205
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678923
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28682979
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28682957
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28681779
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28682947
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678845
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679345
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28682755
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679561
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678681
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680895
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28681187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28682959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28683063
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679097
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28681373
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28682941
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678833
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28681963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678891
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679177
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679843
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28682345
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679233
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679245
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28683429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28685877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680245
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679941
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680331
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28681215
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28684029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678681
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679085
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28685389
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28682005
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28681583
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28683597
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680849
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679485
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678681
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28690227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678681
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28682837
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28681351
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28684447
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679077
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28682865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28685135
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679989
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680317
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28681177
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28684273
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678681
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678981
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28682015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28688261
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679655
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680129
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678681
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679009
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28683211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28683613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679137
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678681
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28684309
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28682057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1533251_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28682033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1533251.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679349
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680129
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28681351
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680201
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1533251.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678759
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679021
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679345
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28683211
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28682865
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679325
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679137
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679167
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28688261
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679085
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28681177
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1533251.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679935
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1533251.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678927
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1533251.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678795
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679485
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679077
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679843
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28688287
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678981
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678923
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679941
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1533251.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678913
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28681187
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680331
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679929
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28685877
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1533251.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678685
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679147
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680849
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28682345
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28681779
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679989
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28681215
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680785
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1533251.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679775
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28682755
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1533251.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28684835
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1533251.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679087
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679655
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679561
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1533251.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678711
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679245
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1533251.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28681237
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1533251.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678687
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28682941
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28681373
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28682005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680761
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680427
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1533251.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679451
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680317
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680205
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28682979
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680245
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28685135
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28682033
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28681583
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680087
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28681963
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1533251.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678725
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1533251.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679619
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1533251.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678869
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28682947
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1533251.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678681
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28682837
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28690227
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28687887
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28684309
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678999
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680895
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678943
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679009
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1533251.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28690611
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1533251.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678699
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28682957
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679059
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679097
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679177
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679233
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678833
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679413
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679257
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28685389
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1533251.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28682537
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1533251.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678571
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678891
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28682057
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679169
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28682959
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28681807
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28682015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679785
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679789
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28683597
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1533251.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678591
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28679945
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1533251.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678497
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28683429
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678845
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1533251.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28678911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28684273
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680115
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680615
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28683063
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680079
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28683613
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28684447
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28684029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1533251.28680035
</commentlist>
</conversation>
