<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_13_157227</id>
	<title>Microsoft vs. Google &mdash; Mutually Assured Destruction</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1247501160000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>jmcbain writes <i>"Robert X. Cringely asserts that <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/13/opinion/13cringely.html">nothing good will come out of the ongoing war between Microsoft and Google</a>: 'The battle between Microsoft and Google entered a new phase last week with the announcement of Google's Chrome Operating System &mdash; a direct attack on Microsoft Windows. This is all heady stuff and good for lots of press, but in the end none of this is likely to make a real difference for either company or, indeed, for consumers. It's just noise &mdash; a form of mutually assured destruction intended to keep each company in check.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>jmcbain writes " Robert X. Cringely asserts that nothing good will come out of the ongoing war between Microsoft and Google : 'The battle between Microsoft and Google entered a new phase last week with the announcement of Google 's Chrome Operating System    a direct attack on Microsoft Windows .
This is all heady stuff and good for lots of press , but in the end none of this is likely to make a real difference for either company or , indeed , for consumers .
It 's just noise    a form of mutually assured destruction intended to keep each company in check .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>jmcbain writes "Robert X. Cringely asserts that nothing good will come out of the ongoing war between Microsoft and Google: 'The battle between Microsoft and Google entered a new phase last week with the announcement of Google's Chrome Operating System — a direct attack on Microsoft Windows.
This is all heady stuff and good for lots of press, but in the end none of this is likely to make a real difference for either company or, indeed, for consumers.
It's just noise — a form of mutually assured destruction intended to keep each company in check.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28682099</id>
	<title>Cringely is way off base on this one</title>
	<author>serutan</author>
	<datestamp>1247477340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cringely is always interesting to read, but I think he was having an off day when he wrote this. He says Google depends on Microsoft because most Google ad traffic comes from web browsers on PCs running Windows, so destroying Microsoft wouldn't be in Google's interest. But this is absurd. Google would get the same traffic if Windows disappeared overnight and all PCs suddenly became Linux boxes or Macs, or for that matter became internet nodes running a web OS. Cringely says Bing has primarily affected Google's competition rather than Google itself, but then he says "Google is too busy defending its own turf to seriously encroach on Microsoft&#226;(TM)s." I get the feeling he wrote this column on an airplane while waiting for the movie to start.</p><p>The idea of a Google OS has been floating around for years. When someone at Google first said, "Let's write our own OS," I seriously doubt that it was because someone had asked, "How can we keep Microsoft on its toes?" Microsoft's vast OS licensing revenue is an obvious target for a company with Google's resources and skill set. Cringely assumes Google would give away its OS, but this isn't a requirement. Google could simply undercut Microsoft's price and still make a ton of money, while forcing Microsoft to cut its own prices in its primary profit center. Microsoft has done this repeatedly in markets where Linux has threatened Windows, and Linux has never had anything like Google's marketing resources.</p><p>Even if Google's sights are set only on the handheld market and not on destroying Microsoft, that could change if their web OS becomes successful. It would be naive to think Microsoft takes this possibility lightly, or that the competition between the two companies is a largely pointless series of feints and counterfeints.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cringely is always interesting to read , but I think he was having an off day when he wrote this .
He says Google depends on Microsoft because most Google ad traffic comes from web browsers on PCs running Windows , so destroying Microsoft would n't be in Google 's interest .
But this is absurd .
Google would get the same traffic if Windows disappeared overnight and all PCs suddenly became Linux boxes or Macs , or for that matter became internet nodes running a web OS .
Cringely says Bing has primarily affected Google 's competition rather than Google itself , but then he says " Google is too busy defending its own turf to seriously encroach on Microsoft   ( TM ) s. " I get the feeling he wrote this column on an airplane while waiting for the movie to start.The idea of a Google OS has been floating around for years .
When someone at Google first said , " Let 's write our own OS , " I seriously doubt that it was because someone had asked , " How can we keep Microsoft on its toes ?
" Microsoft 's vast OS licensing revenue is an obvious target for a company with Google 's resources and skill set .
Cringely assumes Google would give away its OS , but this is n't a requirement .
Google could simply undercut Microsoft 's price and still make a ton of money , while forcing Microsoft to cut its own prices in its primary profit center .
Microsoft has done this repeatedly in markets where Linux has threatened Windows , and Linux has never had anything like Google 's marketing resources.Even if Google 's sights are set only on the handheld market and not on destroying Microsoft , that could change if their web OS becomes successful .
It would be naive to think Microsoft takes this possibility lightly , or that the competition between the two companies is a largely pointless series of feints and counterfeints .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cringely is always interesting to read, but I think he was having an off day when he wrote this.
He says Google depends on Microsoft because most Google ad traffic comes from web browsers on PCs running Windows, so destroying Microsoft wouldn't be in Google's interest.
But this is absurd.
Google would get the same traffic if Windows disappeared overnight and all PCs suddenly became Linux boxes or Macs, or for that matter became internet nodes running a web OS.
Cringely says Bing has primarily affected Google's competition rather than Google itself, but then he says "Google is too busy defending its own turf to seriously encroach on Microsoftâ(TM)s." I get the feeling he wrote this column on an airplane while waiting for the movie to start.The idea of a Google OS has been floating around for years.
When someone at Google first said, "Let's write our own OS," I seriously doubt that it was because someone had asked, "How can we keep Microsoft on its toes?
" Microsoft's vast OS licensing revenue is an obvious target for a company with Google's resources and skill set.
Cringely assumes Google would give away its OS, but this isn't a requirement.
Google could simply undercut Microsoft's price and still make a ton of money, while forcing Microsoft to cut its own prices in its primary profit center.
Microsoft has done this repeatedly in markets where Linux has threatened Windows, and Linux has never had anything like Google's marketing resources.Even if Google's sights are set only on the handheld market and not on destroying Microsoft, that could change if their web OS becomes successful.
It would be naive to think Microsoft takes this possibility lightly, or that the competition between the two companies is a largely pointless series of feints and counterfeints.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677769</id>
	<title>It's dirty software I tells you dagnabbit!</title>
	<author>Drakkenmensch</author>
	<datestamp>1247505000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Edison used to say that Tesla's newfangled alternating current was dangerous, unstable and just plain dirty electricity. I guess that's why a hundred years later, we don't use it anymo- oh wait.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Edison used to say that Tesla 's newfangled alternating current was dangerous , unstable and just plain dirty electricity .
I guess that 's why a hundred years later , we do n't use it anymo- oh wait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Edison used to say that Tesla's newfangled alternating current was dangerous, unstable and just plain dirty electricity.
I guess that's why a hundred years later, we don't use it anymo- oh wait.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678009</id>
	<title>Re:Mutually Assured Destruction? I think not...</title>
	<author>spyrochaete</author>
	<datestamp>1247505720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the conclusion of the article the author talks about how Google and Microsoft will not defeat each other, but some third player will storm in with innovative new ideas and steal the show.  It's more like Mutually Assured Distraction in that they will be blindsided by some up-and-comer who is more in tune with what end users really need.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the conclusion of the article the author talks about how Google and Microsoft will not defeat each other , but some third player will storm in with innovative new ideas and steal the show .
It 's more like Mutually Assured Distraction in that they will be blindsided by some up-and-comer who is more in tune with what end users really need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the conclusion of the article the author talks about how Google and Microsoft will not defeat each other, but some third player will storm in with innovative new ideas and steal the show.
It's more like Mutually Assured Distraction in that they will be blindsided by some up-and-comer who is more in tune with what end users really need.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28685955</id>
	<title>MS blocking ads</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1247501460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I wonder whether MS could get away with adding adblocking to Windows that would eliminate all Google Ad revenue from MS-based products.</i></p><p>MS doesn't need to block ads, they are already easy to block.  All anybody have to do to block ad, or any other server, is to use the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Host\_file" title="wikipedia.org">Host file</a> [wikipedia.org].  It is a plain text file telling the OS where to look for certain domains.  To block certain servers such as ad.doubleclick.com is to set it's address to 127.0.0.1 in the file.  That is the local host and of course ad.doubleclick.com isn't there.  So while I have their banner ads blocked I allow Google's simple text ads.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder whether MS could get away with adding adblocking to Windows that would eliminate all Google Ad revenue from MS-based products.MS does n't need to block ads , they are already easy to block .
All anybody have to do to block ad , or any other server , is to use the Host file [ wikipedia.org ] .
It is a plain text file telling the OS where to look for certain domains .
To block certain servers such as ad.doubleclick.com is to set it 's address to 127.0.0.1 in the file .
That is the local host and of course ad.doubleclick.com is n't there .
So while I have their banner ads blocked I allow Google 's simple text ads .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder whether MS could get away with adding adblocking to Windows that would eliminate all Google Ad revenue from MS-based products.MS doesn't need to block ads, they are already easy to block.
All anybody have to do to block ad, or any other server, is to use the Host file [wikipedia.org].
It is a plain text file telling the OS where to look for certain domains.
To block certain servers such as ad.doubleclick.com is to set it's address to 127.0.0.1 in the file.
That is the local host and of course ad.doubleclick.com isn't there.
So while I have their banner ads blocked I allow Google's simple text ads.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679119</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28682799</id>
	<title>Question:</title>
	<author>Hillgiant</author>
	<datestamp>1247480340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Cringely writes a column and nobody reads it, is he still wrong?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Cringely writes a column and nobody reads it , is he still wrong ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Cringely writes a column and nobody reads it, is he still wrong?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678551</id>
	<title>Re:Dear Mr Cringley</title>
	<author>scubamage</author>
	<datestamp>1247507580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>What is this commie liberal pinko "competition" bs. This is the United States of America. Everyone knows that capitalism works by litigating your competitors into oblivion, not by creating better products and services. Why, just look at the telephone, cable, satellite, and **AA providers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is this commie liberal pinko " competition " bs .
This is the United States of America .
Everyone knows that capitalism works by litigating your competitors into oblivion , not by creating better products and services .
Why , just look at the telephone , cable , satellite , and * * AA providers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is this commie liberal pinko "competition" bs.
This is the United States of America.
Everyone knows that capitalism works by litigating your competitors into oblivion, not by creating better products and services.
Why, just look at the telephone, cable, satellite, and **AA providers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677739</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678757</id>
	<title>The corporation will self destruct in...</title>
	<author>TheGreatOrangePeel</author>
	<datestamp>1247508240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My perception (granted I'm not privy to in-depth knowledge) has been that MS wants to bury Google and that Big G has more or less shrugged its corporate shoulders and been doing business as usual with the exception that it picks up a few extra companies here and there spending only enough to keep a competitive edge. While in contrast, MS keeps re-branding, rebuilding and blowing wads of cash trying to find a competitive edge.</p><p>It reminds me a bit of the cold war where, in the end, it comes down to who can outspend who.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My perception ( granted I 'm not privy to in-depth knowledge ) has been that MS wants to bury Google and that Big G has more or less shrugged its corporate shoulders and been doing business as usual with the exception that it picks up a few extra companies here and there spending only enough to keep a competitive edge .
While in contrast , MS keeps re-branding , rebuilding and blowing wads of cash trying to find a competitive edge.It reminds me a bit of the cold war where , in the end , it comes down to who can outspend who .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My perception (granted I'm not privy to in-depth knowledge) has been that MS wants to bury Google and that Big G has more or less shrugged its corporate shoulders and been doing business as usual with the exception that it picks up a few extra companies here and there spending only enough to keep a competitive edge.
While in contrast, MS keeps re-branding, rebuilding and blowing wads of cash trying to find a competitive edge.It reminds me a bit of the cold war where, in the end, it comes down to who can outspend who.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28685965</id>
	<title>Not a nuke -- A Smokescreen</title>
	<author>StCredZero</author>
	<datestamp>1247501520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have two near-monopolies here.  It's not Mutual Assured Destruction.  It's more like WWF.  They're putting on a fake fight, with lots of noise, but little chance of either side making much headway over the other.  They're not out to make any headway, just *headlines*.</p><p>It's a win-win situation.  They both get to point to each other when the Justice Dept. comes around and say, "See!  There's my competition right there!"  Plus, they get tons of publicity out of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have two near-monopolies here .
It 's not Mutual Assured Destruction .
It 's more like WWF .
They 're putting on a fake fight , with lots of noise , but little chance of either side making much headway over the other .
They 're not out to make any headway , just * headlines * .It 's a win-win situation .
They both get to point to each other when the Justice Dept .
comes around and say , " See !
There 's my competition right there !
" Plus , they get tons of publicity out of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have two near-monopolies here.
It's not Mutual Assured Destruction.
It's more like WWF.
They're putting on a fake fight, with lots of noise, but little chance of either side making much headway over the other.
They're not out to make any headway, just *headlines*.It's a win-win situation.
They both get to point to each other when the Justice Dept.
comes around and say, "See!
There's my competition right there!
"  Plus, they get tons of publicity out of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678383</id>
	<title>Re:Mutually Assured Destruction? I think not...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247506980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The day Microsoft hardcodes into Windows the inability to access Google, that'll be the day Microsoft Windows officially begins its death spiral...</i> </p><p>MSFT doesn't have to block Google, just control the "defaults".  Updates to IE - which oddly seem more frequent - prompt the user to rejigger their home page.  A new IE each year will be at least one opportunity to sell Bing or Live or MS Whatever.  Each new PC device - and we will have more of them as they get cheaper - will again require that we set our defaults away from MSFT's selections.</p><p>Google pays good money to Mozilla for the Firefox default search engine.  The Chrome OS is another avenue to push Google as a default.  I don't see this battle so much as MAD but rather one in which only MSFT can lose.  After all, the only money at stake is the licensing of OS and productivity software.  Would you sit down at a poker table with a $100,000,000,000 pot when you only have to kick in a few dollars?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The day Microsoft hardcodes into Windows the inability to access Google , that 'll be the day Microsoft Windows officially begins its death spiral... MSFT does n't have to block Google , just control the " defaults " .
Updates to IE - which oddly seem more frequent - prompt the user to rejigger their home page .
A new IE each year will be at least one opportunity to sell Bing or Live or MS Whatever .
Each new PC device - and we will have more of them as they get cheaper - will again require that we set our defaults away from MSFT 's selections.Google pays good money to Mozilla for the Firefox default search engine .
The Chrome OS is another avenue to push Google as a default .
I do n't see this battle so much as MAD but rather one in which only MSFT can lose .
After all , the only money at stake is the licensing of OS and productivity software .
Would you sit down at a poker table with a $ 100,000,000,000 pot when you only have to kick in a few dollars ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The day Microsoft hardcodes into Windows the inability to access Google, that'll be the day Microsoft Windows officially begins its death spiral... MSFT doesn't have to block Google, just control the "defaults".
Updates to IE - which oddly seem more frequent - prompt the user to rejigger their home page.
A new IE each year will be at least one opportunity to sell Bing or Live or MS Whatever.
Each new PC device - and we will have more of them as they get cheaper - will again require that we set our defaults away from MSFT's selections.Google pays good money to Mozilla for the Firefox default search engine.
The Chrome OS is another avenue to push Google as a default.
I don't see this battle so much as MAD but rather one in which only MSFT can lose.
After all, the only money at stake is the licensing of OS and productivity software.
Would you sit down at a poker table with a $100,000,000,000 pot when you only have to kick in a few dollars?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677917</id>
	<title>Is cringley a microsoft shill ?</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1247505480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>honestly, i dont know whether if he is. he surely sounds like one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>honestly , i dont know whether if he is .
he surely sounds like one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>honestly, i dont know whether if he is.
he surely sounds like one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679073</id>
	<title>Re:It's dirty software I tells you dagnabbit!</title>
	<author>powerlord</author>
	<datestamp>1247509200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Edison used to say that Tesla's newfangled alternating current was dangerous, unstable and just plain dirty electricity. I guess that's why a hundred years later, we don't use it anymo- oh wait.</p></div></blockquote><p>Absolutely!</p><p>Edison even went so far as building the worlds first Electric Chair (for use in executions), using AC current just to show the world how dangerous Tesla + Westinghouse's AC current was over DC.  Good thing Tesla didn't invent the Stun Gun to show how dangerous DC current could be ("Why, Look at how harmful one of Edison's simple "harmless" batteries can be")</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Edison used to say that Tesla 's newfangled alternating current was dangerous , unstable and just plain dirty electricity .
I guess that 's why a hundred years later , we do n't use it anymo- oh wait.Absolutely ! Edison even went so far as building the worlds first Electric Chair ( for use in executions ) , using AC current just to show the world how dangerous Tesla + Westinghouse 's AC current was over DC .
Good thing Tesla did n't invent the Stun Gun to show how dangerous DC current could be ( " Why , Look at how harmful one of Edison 's simple " harmless " batteries can be " )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Edison used to say that Tesla's newfangled alternating current was dangerous, unstable and just plain dirty electricity.
I guess that's why a hundred years later, we don't use it anymo- oh wait.Absolutely!Edison even went so far as building the worlds first Electric Chair (for use in executions), using AC current just to show the world how dangerous Tesla + Westinghouse's AC current was over DC.
Good thing Tesla didn't invent the Stun Gun to show how dangerous DC current could be ("Why, Look at how harmful one of Edison's simple "harmless" batteries can be")
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677769</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28685827</id>
	<title>Re:Remember Windows on 90\% Desktop</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1247500560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It would not take much for the Windows OS to somehow make using Google products so much harder and inconvenient, and people will switch back to using 90\% all MSFT software and think there is actually fair competition.</i></p><p>Except some people think for themselves.  After using Windows almost exclusively for more than 10 years, when it came tyme for me to get a new computer I evaluated my needs, er wants, and saw that Linux and OS X could do everything I wanted.  So I got a Linux PC I can use as a server and a MacBook Pro for a portable computer.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would not take much for the Windows OS to somehow make using Google products so much harder and inconvenient , and people will switch back to using 90 \ % all MSFT software and think there is actually fair competition.Except some people think for themselves .
After using Windows almost exclusively for more than 10 years , when it came tyme for me to get a new computer I evaluated my needs , er wants , and saw that Linux and OS X could do everything I wanted .
So I got a Linux PC I can use as a server and a MacBook Pro for a portable computer .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would not take much for the Windows OS to somehow make using Google products so much harder and inconvenient, and people will switch back to using 90\% all MSFT software and think there is actually fair competition.Except some people think for themselves.
After using Windows almost exclusively for more than 10 years, when it came tyme for me to get a new computer I evaluated my needs, er wants, and saw that Linux and OS X could do everything I wanted.
So I got a Linux PC I can use as a server and a MacBook Pro for a portable computer.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678639</id>
	<title>That's just crazy talk.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1247507820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it wasn't for Google Chrome and Firefox, we would still be using IE6.</p><p>If it wasn't for Linux, there would probably not nearly the investment in Vista and Win7 that there has been.</p><p>And, I guarantee you, that if there were no Linux free IDEs, there would be no Visual Studio Express.  I doubly guarantee you, that, if there was no gcc, there would be no standards compliant C++ in Visual Studio.</p><p>Google may not conquer the world with Chrome OS, and I think will ultimately lose to Microsoft,  but, competition benefits everyone.</p><p>What will Google do to bolster search to respond to Bing?  How will Adobe respond to Silverlight... you can laugh at Silverlight 1.0, dismiss 2.0, but MS has away of just chugging away like the borg when they want to attack a market.</p><p>It's all bound to keep people on their toes.  What would be the alternative?  A treaty between Google and Microsoft keeping each other in the browser and desktop, respectively?  That would suck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it was n't for Google Chrome and Firefox , we would still be using IE6.If it was n't for Linux , there would probably not nearly the investment in Vista and Win7 that there has been.And , I guarantee you , that if there were no Linux free IDEs , there would be no Visual Studio Express .
I doubly guarantee you , that , if there was no gcc , there would be no standards compliant C + + in Visual Studio.Google may not conquer the world with Chrome OS , and I think will ultimately lose to Microsoft , but , competition benefits everyone.What will Google do to bolster search to respond to Bing ?
How will Adobe respond to Silverlight... you can laugh at Silverlight 1.0 , dismiss 2.0 , but MS has away of just chugging away like the borg when they want to attack a market.It 's all bound to keep people on their toes .
What would be the alternative ?
A treaty between Google and Microsoft keeping each other in the browser and desktop , respectively ?
That would suck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it wasn't for Google Chrome and Firefox, we would still be using IE6.If it wasn't for Linux, there would probably not nearly the investment in Vista and Win7 that there has been.And, I guarantee you, that if there were no Linux free IDEs, there would be no Visual Studio Express.
I doubly guarantee you, that, if there was no gcc, there would be no standards compliant C++ in Visual Studio.Google may not conquer the world with Chrome OS, and I think will ultimately lose to Microsoft,  but, competition benefits everyone.What will Google do to bolster search to respond to Bing?
How will Adobe respond to Silverlight... you can laugh at Silverlight 1.0, dismiss 2.0, but MS has away of just chugging away like the borg when they want to attack a market.It's all bound to keep people on their toes.
What would be the alternative?
A treaty between Google and Microsoft keeping each other in the browser and desktop, respectively?
That would suck.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679847</id>
	<title>Re:First Nuclear Weapon Equipped Post</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1247511600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TFS makes no sense at all, I hope Cringley's article (which I plan on reading) isn't as retarded.</p><p><i>in the end none of this is likely to make a real difference for either company or, indeed, for consumers. It's just noise</i></p><p>Followed by <i>a form of mutually assured destruction intended to keep each company in check</i></p><p>How is noise a form of "mutually assured destruction"? Now my two cents, I don't think either company has the means to destroy the other. It's like England and France calling each other names in "mutually assured destruction."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TFS makes no sense at all , I hope Cringley 's article ( which I plan on reading ) is n't as retarded.in the end none of this is likely to make a real difference for either company or , indeed , for consumers .
It 's just noiseFollowed by a form of mutually assured destruction intended to keep each company in checkHow is noise a form of " mutually assured destruction " ?
Now my two cents , I do n't think either company has the means to destroy the other .
It 's like England and France calling each other names in " mutually assured destruction .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFS makes no sense at all, I hope Cringley's article (which I plan on reading) isn't as retarded.in the end none of this is likely to make a real difference for either company or, indeed, for consumers.
It's just noiseFollowed by a form of mutually assured destruction intended to keep each company in checkHow is noise a form of "mutually assured destruction"?
Now my two cents, I don't think either company has the means to destroy the other.
It's like England and France calling each other names in "mutually assured destruction.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678787</id>
	<title>Re:Chrome OS being open source...</title>
	<author>moon3</author>
	<datestamp>1247508300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
<i>
I... I don't know exactly how to put this, sir, but are you aware of what a serious breach of security that would be? I mean, [[Microsoft]] will see everything, they'll... they'll see the Big Board!
</i>
<br> <br>
--General Buck Turgidson</htmltext>
<tokenext>I... I do n't know exactly how to put this , sir , but are you aware of what a serious breach of security that would be ?
I mean , [ [ Microsoft ] ] will see everything , they 'll... they 'll see the Big Board !
--General Buck Turgidson</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

I... I don't know exactly how to put this, sir, but are you aware of what a serious breach of security that would be?
I mean, [[Microsoft]] will see everything, they'll... they'll see the Big Board!
--General Buck Turgidson</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677875</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28684317</id>
	<title>Re:That's just crazy talk.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247488380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it weren't for Linux? That was a good laugh. Microsoft barely cares about Linux; can you buy a computer with it installed at Best Buy? Microsoft's worry has always been OS X, which is why they spend millions in TV commercials now to combat it, no mention of a penguin in any of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it were n't for Linux ?
That was a good laugh .
Microsoft barely cares about Linux ; can you buy a computer with it installed at Best Buy ?
Microsoft 's worry has always been OS X , which is why they spend millions in TV commercials now to combat it , no mention of a penguin in any of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it weren't for Linux?
That was a good laugh.
Microsoft barely cares about Linux; can you buy a computer with it installed at Best Buy?
Microsoft's worry has always been OS X, which is why they spend millions in TV commercials now to combat it, no mention of a penguin in any of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677783</id>
	<title>war</title>
	<author>brenddie</author>
	<datestamp>1247505060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nothing like a little war to advance the state of technology.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing like a little war to advance the state of technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing like a little war to advance the state of technology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680001</id>
	<title>Attack on Windows</title>
	<author>Cro Magnon</author>
	<datestamp>1247512140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see it as a defense against a company that wants to "fucking kill" them.  GoogOS isn't going to threaten Doze anytime soon, but it does give Google an OS that they, not their competitor, control.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see it as a defense against a company that wants to " fucking kill " them .
GoogOS is n't going to threaten Doze anytime soon , but it does give Google an OS that they , not their competitor , control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see it as a defense against a company that wants to "fucking kill" them.
GoogOS isn't going to threaten Doze anytime soon, but it does give Google an OS that they, not their competitor, control.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679119</id>
	<title>Modes of Destruction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247509320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MS would perish were their OS and Office sales to plummet.  If the stars lined up for them, Google (or more likely someone else) do this with a competing product over many years.</p><p>Google would perish were a large proportion of internet users to get savvy and block all their ads.  I wonder whether MS could get away with adding adblocking to Windows that would eliminate all Google Ad revenue from MS-based products.  That would probably get them in hot water, but easy access to addons for IE (assuming good adblockers exist for IE) with a suggestion to install the adblocker would maybe be a bit more feasible.  To get away with it they'd have to sacrifice their own ad revenue as well, but unlike Google, they don't need it.  Imagine MS killing the ad-funded web.  How would web content change?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MS would perish were their OS and Office sales to plummet .
If the stars lined up for them , Google ( or more likely someone else ) do this with a competing product over many years.Google would perish were a large proportion of internet users to get savvy and block all their ads .
I wonder whether MS could get away with adding adblocking to Windows that would eliminate all Google Ad revenue from MS-based products .
That would probably get them in hot water , but easy access to addons for IE ( assuming good adblockers exist for IE ) with a suggestion to install the adblocker would maybe be a bit more feasible .
To get away with it they 'd have to sacrifice their own ad revenue as well , but unlike Google , they do n't need it .
Imagine MS killing the ad-funded web .
How would web content change ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS would perish were their OS and Office sales to plummet.
If the stars lined up for them, Google (or more likely someone else) do this with a competing product over many years.Google would perish were a large proportion of internet users to get savvy and block all their ads.
I wonder whether MS could get away with adding adblocking to Windows that would eliminate all Google Ad revenue from MS-based products.
That would probably get them in hot water, but easy access to addons for IE (assuming good adblockers exist for IE) with a suggestion to install the adblocker would maybe be a bit more feasible.
To get away with it they'd have to sacrifice their own ad revenue as well, but unlike Google, they don't need it.
Imagine MS killing the ad-funded web.
How would web content change?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678185</id>
	<title>Re:Dear Mr Cringley</title>
	<author>Zoidbot</author>
	<datestamp>1247506200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except in America, where corruption is rife (despite having anti-corruption laws), and big corporates like Microsoft (and to a lesser degree Google) can do what they hell they want, as long as they keep people in work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except in America , where corruption is rife ( despite having anti-corruption laws ) , and big corporates like Microsoft ( and to a lesser degree Google ) can do what they hell they want , as long as they keep people in work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except in America, where corruption is rife (despite having anti-corruption laws), and big corporates like Microsoft (and to a lesser degree Google) can do what they hell they want, as long as they keep people in work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677739</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28687751</id>
	<title>Re:Competition</title>
	<author>Sparx139</author>
	<datestamp>1247563020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Competition in and of itself is perfectly fine. In microsoft's case though... Just look at their track record.<p><div class="quote"><p>What Googles chief executive, Eric Schmidt, has to fear more than anything else is that hell awake one day to learn that the Google search engine suddenly doesnt work on any Windows computers: something happened overnight and what worked yesterday doesnt work today. It would have to be an act of deliberate sabotage on Microsofts part and blatantly illegal, but that doesnt mean it couldnt happen. Microsoft would claim ignorance and innocence and take days, weeks or months to reverse the effect, during which time Google would have lost billions.</p></div><p>Now, I wouldn't put this past M$. They've done similar things before - one recent example being the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.odf fiasco</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Competition in and of itself is perfectly fine .
In microsoft 's case though... Just look at their track record.What Googles chief executive , Eric Schmidt , has to fear more than anything else is that hell awake one day to learn that the Google search engine suddenly doesnt work on any Windows computers : something happened overnight and what worked yesterday doesnt work today .
It would have to be an act of deliberate sabotage on Microsofts part and blatantly illegal , but that doesnt mean it couldnt happen .
Microsoft would claim ignorance and innocence and take days , weeks or months to reverse the effect , during which time Google would have lost billions.Now , I would n't put this past M $ .
They 've done similar things before - one recent example being the .odf fiasco</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Competition in and of itself is perfectly fine.
In microsoft's case though... Just look at their track record.What Googles chief executive, Eric Schmidt, has to fear more than anything else is that hell awake one day to learn that the Google search engine suddenly doesnt work on any Windows computers: something happened overnight and what worked yesterday doesnt work today.
It would have to be an act of deliberate sabotage on Microsofts part and blatantly illegal, but that doesnt mean it couldnt happen.
Microsoft would claim ignorance and innocence and take days, weeks or months to reverse the effect, during which time Google would have lost billions.Now, I wouldn't put this past M$.
They've done similar things before - one recent example being the .odf fiasco
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678959</id>
	<title>It is not about war!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247508840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> It is about securing revenue stream for the future. Google Chrome and Chrome OS are not attacks on IE or Windows. Google does not give a crap what browser or OS runs its Web Applications. It is open source any way they wont make much money on it. Google only interested in assuring that its web applications will run smoothly with great performance.They made a browser (open source with existing community, no real cost for Google, they mostly just branding  it) claiming it is faster and following better the latest standards than anything else, that might was a stretch, but still all other browser manufacturer came out with a "faster" browser. The  result? Google's web apps now a running faster and more securely than before on ALL the browsers. Google now announced that they are making a new lightweight secure OS for netbooks, coming next year, MS will come out a netbook OS (either Win 7 or WinCE 7 or Midori ) (and probably Apple will come out with a secure and lighting fast netbook as well) What will be the result? Netbooks are etting more popular more hyped and running Google's web applications faster and more securely than before.</p><p>It is not about fighting, it is about driving the research and development into the right direction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is about securing revenue stream for the future .
Google Chrome and Chrome OS are not attacks on IE or Windows .
Google does not give a crap what browser or OS runs its Web Applications .
It is open source any way they wont make much money on it .
Google only interested in assuring that its web applications will run smoothly with great performance.They made a browser ( open source with existing community , no real cost for Google , they mostly just branding it ) claiming it is faster and following better the latest standards than anything else , that might was a stretch , but still all other browser manufacturer came out with a " faster " browser .
The result ?
Google 's web apps now a running faster and more securely than before on ALL the browsers .
Google now announced that they are making a new lightweight secure OS for netbooks , coming next year , MS will come out a netbook OS ( either Win 7 or WinCE 7 or Midori ) ( and probably Apple will come out with a secure and lighting fast netbook as well ) What will be the result ?
Netbooks are etting more popular more hyped and running Google 's web applications faster and more securely than before.It is not about fighting , it is about driving the research and development into the right direction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> It is about securing revenue stream for the future.
Google Chrome and Chrome OS are not attacks on IE or Windows.
Google does not give a crap what browser or OS runs its Web Applications.
It is open source any way they wont make much money on it.
Google only interested in assuring that its web applications will run smoothly with great performance.They made a browser (open source with existing community, no real cost for Google, they mostly just branding  it) claiming it is faster and following better the latest standards than anything else, that might was a stretch, but still all other browser manufacturer came out with a "faster" browser.
The  result?
Google's web apps now a running faster and more securely than before on ALL the browsers.
Google now announced that they are making a new lightweight secure OS for netbooks, coming next year, MS will come out a netbook OS (either Win 7 or WinCE 7 or Midori ) (and probably Apple will come out with a secure and lighting fast netbook as well) What will be the result?
Netbooks are etting more popular more hyped and running Google's web applications faster and more securely than before.It is not about fighting, it is about driving the research and development into the right direction.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678941</id>
	<title>So that I can be believed, later...</title>
	<author>WheelDweller</author>
	<datestamp>1247508780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google's not gonna make it as far as they thing. Just another attempt to get the bone-heads to stop using a poor, dangerous, fragile product because people are *used*to*it*.  So don't worry about it.</p><p>And Microsoft has shown exactly how inept it can be when it tries to do anything BUT an operating system. Remember how their plush-toys took the world by storm? How about that WebTV everyone has?</p><p>Forget it; a one-trick, Mega-pony.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google 's not gon na make it as far as they thing .
Just another attempt to get the bone-heads to stop using a poor , dangerous , fragile product because people are * used * to * it * .
So do n't worry about it.And Microsoft has shown exactly how inept it can be when it tries to do anything BUT an operating system .
Remember how their plush-toys took the world by storm ?
How about that WebTV everyone has ? Forget it ; a one-trick , Mega-pony .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google's not gonna make it as far as they thing.
Just another attempt to get the bone-heads to stop using a poor, dangerous, fragile product because people are *used*to*it*.
So don't worry about it.And Microsoft has shown exactly how inept it can be when it tries to do anything BUT an operating system.
Remember how their plush-toys took the world by storm?
How about that WebTV everyone has?Forget it; a one-trick, Mega-pony.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680971</id>
	<title>Re:Makes more sense than Cringely lets on</title>
	<author>Lonewolf666</author>
	<datestamp>1247515980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>2. It could fill a not-yet-filled void: There is a very good chance Chrome will end up dominating netbook Linux the way Android is on the way to dominating handset Linux. Android is a really nice system, and deserves to win versus most other mobile Linux alternatives. Android is accelerating the use of Linux in handsets. Chrome might be that much better than other netbook Linuxes that it, too, ends up dominating and expanding it's market segment.</p></div><p>It will certainly be interesting to see how Google approaches that goal.</p><p>If they do it by making the desktop environment lightweight yet capable of supporting most (if not all) Linux apps, I can see more people using it. After all, the kernel runs on a few megabytes, it's Gnome or KDE that are eating memory like popcorn.<br>I, for one, would like having a relatively simple GUI like in Windows 2000 that saves memory to boot<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>2 .
It could fill a not-yet-filled void : There is a very good chance Chrome will end up dominating netbook Linux the way Android is on the way to dominating handset Linux .
Android is a really nice system , and deserves to win versus most other mobile Linux alternatives .
Android is accelerating the use of Linux in handsets .
Chrome might be that much better than other netbook Linuxes that it , too , ends up dominating and expanding it 's market segment.It will certainly be interesting to see how Google approaches that goal.If they do it by making the desktop environment lightweight yet capable of supporting most ( if not all ) Linux apps , I can see more people using it .
After all , the kernel runs on a few megabytes , it 's Gnome or KDE that are eating memory like popcorn.I , for one , would like having a relatively simple GUI like in Windows 2000 that saves memory to boot ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2.
It could fill a not-yet-filled void: There is a very good chance Chrome will end up dominating netbook Linux the way Android is on the way to dominating handset Linux.
Android is a really nice system, and deserves to win versus most other mobile Linux alternatives.
Android is accelerating the use of Linux in handsets.
Chrome might be that much better than other netbook Linuxes that it, too, ends up dominating and expanding it's market segment.It will certainly be interesting to see how Google approaches that goal.If they do it by making the desktop environment lightweight yet capable of supporting most (if not all) Linux apps, I can see more people using it.
After all, the kernel runs on a few megabytes, it's Gnome or KDE that are eating memory like popcorn.I, for one, would like having a relatively simple GUI like in Windows 2000 that saves memory to boot ;-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678653</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679377</id>
	<title>remembering the Network Computer?</title>
	<author>rs232</author>
	<datestamp>1247510280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"<i>The Network Computer [wikipedia.org] was developed by Oracle and partners to take out Microsoft and Microsoft Windows<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. It eventually flopped</i>"<br> <br>

Actually no, the NC was seen as a good revenue stream by the originators and only seen as a threat if you were living in Redmond and saw every new development as one less Windows license. <br> <br>

"The Windows Org marketing team has spent the past 6 months fighting the TCO battle, addressing the threat of the NC<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. We have been closely monitoring, <a href="px02817.pdf" title="slashdot.org">attacking</a> [slashdot.org], and winning NC threatened accounts", FY98<br> <br>

'we have a conference call with them (intel) re NetPC today at 9<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. yup, it would be crazy to Intel define this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. the only urgent issue I can think of is defining how it boots, <a href="http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/2000/PX02597.pdf" title="slated.org">if we let Intel do this in a proprietary way we're screwed</a> [slated.org]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. having Intel draft this spec and take it to the industry will cause up more headaches in the long run if we don't get out in front'</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The Network Computer [ wikipedia.org ] was developed by Oracle and partners to take out Microsoft and Microsoft Windows .. It eventually flopped " Actually no , the NC was seen as a good revenue stream by the originators and only seen as a threat if you were living in Redmond and saw every new development as one less Windows license .
" The Windows Org marketing team has spent the past 6 months fighting the TCO battle , addressing the threat of the NC .. We have been closely monitoring , attacking [ slashdot.org ] , and winning NC threatened accounts " , FY98 'we have a conference call with them ( intel ) re NetPC today at 9 .. yup , it would be crazy to Intel define this .. the only urgent issue I can think of is defining how it boots , if we let Intel do this in a proprietary way we 're screwed [ slated.org ] .. having Intel draft this spec and take it to the industry will cause up more headaches in the long run if we do n't get out in front'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The Network Computer [wikipedia.org] was developed by Oracle and partners to take out Microsoft and Microsoft Windows .. It eventually flopped" 

Actually no, the NC was seen as a good revenue stream by the originators and only seen as a threat if you were living in Redmond and saw every new development as one less Windows license.
"The Windows Org marketing team has spent the past 6 months fighting the TCO battle, addressing the threat of the NC .. We have been closely monitoring, attacking [slashdot.org], and winning NC threatened accounts", FY98 

'we have a conference call with them (intel) re NetPC today at 9 .. yup, it would be crazy to Intel define this .. the only urgent issue I can think of is defining how it boots, if we let Intel do this in a proprietary way we're screwed [slated.org] .. having Intel draft this spec and take it to the industry will cause up more headaches in the long run if we don't get out in front'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28685383</id>
	<title>Re:Cringe-worthy analysis</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247497140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is like bad science fiction, written before the internet was invented - by Dan Brown.</p></div><p>Holy Illuminati, Batman! Dan Brown invented the internet?!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is like bad science fiction , written before the internet was invented - by Dan Brown.Holy Illuminati , Batman !
Dan Brown invented the internet ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is like bad science fiction, written before the internet was invented - by Dan Brown.Holy Illuminati, Batman!
Dan Brown invented the internet?
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678269</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678839</id>
	<title>Re:not good?</title>
	<author>Presto Vivace</author>
	<datestamp>1247508420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I had the same reaction, also Cringly is trying to be provocative for the sake of being provocative.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had the same reaction , also Cringly is trying to be provocative for the sake of being provocative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had the same reaction, also Cringly is trying to be provocative for the sake of being provocative.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677737</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678305</id>
	<title>What's Good About Google Chrome OS</title>
	<author>Nom du Keyboard</author>
	<datestamp>1247506680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's hard to believe that the Google Chrome OS will have any short-term effect since it doesn't come out for a year minimum. It's like saying that gasoline prices will change next summer -- who cares now?
<br> <br>
The big deal about Chrome is that it will run on ARM, and that's more about breaking the Intel monopoly than the Microsoft monopoly -- which I think is a good thing!</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's hard to believe that the Google Chrome OS will have any short-term effect since it does n't come out for a year minimum .
It 's like saying that gasoline prices will change next summer -- who cares now ?
The big deal about Chrome is that it will run on ARM , and that 's more about breaking the Intel monopoly than the Microsoft monopoly -- which I think is a good thing !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's hard to believe that the Google Chrome OS will have any short-term effect since it doesn't come out for a year minimum.
It's like saying that gasoline prices will change next summer -- who cares now?
The big deal about Chrome is that it will run on ARM, and that's more about breaking the Intel monopoly than the Microsoft monopoly -- which I think is a good thing!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678791</id>
	<title>CRINGELY is an Idiot</title>
	<author>mlwmohawk</author>
	<datestamp>1247508300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ahh, there I said it. It feels good to say it.</p><p>He's the broken clock of pundits, he's right twice a day, but only by accident.</p><p>The problem with Google vs Microsoft is that Google should have made this move 6 years ago and it would have been in place to capitalize on the fiasco that is/was Vista.</p><p>The advantage Google has over, say, Canonical with Ubuntu, ls that everyone knows who Google is, sheesh, its used as a verb. Google docs is getting some uptake in smaller companies. OpenOffice is getting some uptake in others. The economy is helping the lower cost alternatives. People with skills are losing jobs and turning to lower cost or free alternatives in order to make money contracting.</p><p>Google can deal with Intuit, Adobe, and others to get their apps ported to Linux.</p><p>Google has the resources to make it happen. To beat Microsoft on the desktop market. The question is will they?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahh , there I said it .
It feels good to say it.He 's the broken clock of pundits , he 's right twice a day , but only by accident.The problem with Google vs Microsoft is that Google should have made this move 6 years ago and it would have been in place to capitalize on the fiasco that is/was Vista.The advantage Google has over , say , Canonical with Ubuntu , ls that everyone knows who Google is , sheesh , its used as a verb .
Google docs is getting some uptake in smaller companies .
OpenOffice is getting some uptake in others .
The economy is helping the lower cost alternatives .
People with skills are losing jobs and turning to lower cost or free alternatives in order to make money contracting.Google can deal with Intuit , Adobe , and others to get their apps ported to Linux.Google has the resources to make it happen .
To beat Microsoft on the desktop market .
The question is will they ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahh, there I said it.
It feels good to say it.He's the broken clock of pundits, he's right twice a day, but only by accident.The problem with Google vs Microsoft is that Google should have made this move 6 years ago and it would have been in place to capitalize on the fiasco that is/was Vista.The advantage Google has over, say, Canonical with Ubuntu, ls that everyone knows who Google is, sheesh, its used as a verb.
Google docs is getting some uptake in smaller companies.
OpenOffice is getting some uptake in others.
The economy is helping the lower cost alternatives.
People with skills are losing jobs and turning to lower cost or free alternatives in order to make money contracting.Google can deal with Intuit, Adobe, and others to get their apps ported to Linux.Google has the resources to make it happen.
To beat Microsoft on the desktop market.
The question is will they?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28684073</id>
	<title>Re:Remember Windows on 90\% Desktop</title>
	<author>idlemachine</author>
	<datestamp>1247486820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People are animals. Train them a certain way and they respond to your command.</p></div><p>
I keep hearing this claim here, and I'm going to call it out as elitist bullshit.
</p><p>
The idea that [insert your favourite derogatory term here for everyone who isn't you] are unable to come to terms with a new operating system just isn't born out by the mobile phone market, which is <i>incredibly</i> fragmented in terms of OSes and interfaces. And yet, somehow, it's an incredibly successful market to which consumers seem to have no trouble adapting.
</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I think most people misinterpret what Cringely is saying, or plain did not read the article.</p></div><p>
Nice argument technique there, great way to invalidate any opposing position. It must be both a terrible burden and an amazing gift to have such intimate access to the inner states of everyone else around you. You should become a tech pundit with the sterling insight into human behaviour &amp; market forces that you've displayed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People are animals .
Train them a certain way and they respond to your command .
I keep hearing this claim here , and I 'm going to call it out as elitist bullshit .
The idea that [ insert your favourite derogatory term here for everyone who is n't you ] are unable to come to terms with a new operating system just is n't born out by the mobile phone market , which is incredibly fragmented in terms of OSes and interfaces .
And yet , somehow , it 's an incredibly successful market to which consumers seem to have no trouble adapting .
I think most people misinterpret what Cringely is saying , or plain did not read the article .
Nice argument technique there , great way to invalidate any opposing position .
It must be both a terrible burden and an amazing gift to have such intimate access to the inner states of everyone else around you .
You should become a tech pundit with the sterling insight into human behaviour &amp; market forces that you 've displayed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People are animals.
Train them a certain way and they respond to your command.
I keep hearing this claim here, and I'm going to call it out as elitist bullshit.
The idea that [insert your favourite derogatory term here for everyone who isn't you] are unable to come to terms with a new operating system just isn't born out by the mobile phone market, which is incredibly fragmented in terms of OSes and interfaces.
And yet, somehow, it's an incredibly successful market to which consumers seem to have no trouble adapting.
I think most people misinterpret what Cringely is saying, or plain did not read the article.
Nice argument technique there, great way to invalidate any opposing position.
It must be both a terrible burden and an amazing gift to have such intimate access to the inner states of everyone else around you.
You should become a tech pundit with the sterling insight into human behaviour &amp; market forces that you've displayed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28685089</id>
	<title>Lame</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247493960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>hmm whoever wrote this needs to stop writing for slashdot imo.  Nothing BUT good will come of this, not saying google will take over the desktop OS  or MS will take over the web... But this will push both companies towards progression and keep them both on their toes.  Lots of innovative ideas will come about because of this competition. (Duh)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>hmm whoever wrote this needs to stop writing for slashdot imo .
Nothing BUT good will come of this , not saying google will take over the desktop OS or MS will take over the web... But this will push both companies towards progression and keep them both on their toes .
Lots of innovative ideas will come about because of this competition .
( Duh )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hmm whoever wrote this needs to stop writing for slashdot imo.
Nothing BUT good will come of this, not saying google will take over the desktop OS  or MS will take over the web... But this will push both companies towards progression and keep them both on their toes.
Lots of innovative ideas will come about because of this competition.
(Duh)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678653</id>
	<title>Makes more sense than Cringely lets on</title>
	<author>Zigurd</author>
	<datestamp>1247507880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chrome OS fills a number of needs. Whether these turn out to be the needs of end-users remains to be seen, but Chrome OS is not just some industry giants engaging in a slanging match:</p><p>1. Chrome OS will help segment Atom from Pentium and Core. That's a pretty big need right there, for Intel, anyway.</p><p>2. It could fill a not-yet-filled void: There is a very good chance Chrome will end up dominating netbook Linux the way Android is on the way to dominating handset Linux. Android is a really nice system, and deserves to win versus most other mobile Linux alternatives. Android is accelerating the use of Linux in handsets. Chrome might be that much better than other netbook Linuxes that it, too, ends up dominating and expanding it's market segment.</p><p>3. OEMs have been porting Android to devices that may not be the best match for Android. Chrome OS is a better answer than diluting or de-focusing Android to make it a more universal OS.</p><p>4. It completes the strategic picture for GWT, Gears, and Chrome: Google has a multi-layered strategy to make their applications run on any OS and any browser. If GWT and Gears on IE on Windows 7 are one end of the spectrum, Chrome OS is the other end. Microsoft has an OS platform where they can integrate search and the cloud and local applications. Now Google does, too.</p><p>I would not be surprised to see an Android application runtime on Chrome OS, alongside the browser/JavaScript runtime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chrome OS fills a number of needs .
Whether these turn out to be the needs of end-users remains to be seen , but Chrome OS is not just some industry giants engaging in a slanging match : 1 .
Chrome OS will help segment Atom from Pentium and Core .
That 's a pretty big need right there , for Intel , anyway.2 .
It could fill a not-yet-filled void : There is a very good chance Chrome will end up dominating netbook Linux the way Android is on the way to dominating handset Linux .
Android is a really nice system , and deserves to win versus most other mobile Linux alternatives .
Android is accelerating the use of Linux in handsets .
Chrome might be that much better than other netbook Linuxes that it , too , ends up dominating and expanding it 's market segment.3 .
OEMs have been porting Android to devices that may not be the best match for Android .
Chrome OS is a better answer than diluting or de-focusing Android to make it a more universal OS.4 .
It completes the strategic picture for GWT , Gears , and Chrome : Google has a multi-layered strategy to make their applications run on any OS and any browser .
If GWT and Gears on IE on Windows 7 are one end of the spectrum , Chrome OS is the other end .
Microsoft has an OS platform where they can integrate search and the cloud and local applications .
Now Google does , too.I would not be surprised to see an Android application runtime on Chrome OS , alongside the browser/JavaScript runtime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chrome OS fills a number of needs.
Whether these turn out to be the needs of end-users remains to be seen, but Chrome OS is not just some industry giants engaging in a slanging match:1.
Chrome OS will help segment Atom from Pentium and Core.
That's a pretty big need right there, for Intel, anyway.2.
It could fill a not-yet-filled void: There is a very good chance Chrome will end up dominating netbook Linux the way Android is on the way to dominating handset Linux.
Android is a really nice system, and deserves to win versus most other mobile Linux alternatives.
Android is accelerating the use of Linux in handsets.
Chrome might be that much better than other netbook Linuxes that it, too, ends up dominating and expanding it's market segment.3.
OEMs have been porting Android to devices that may not be the best match for Android.
Chrome OS is a better answer than diluting or de-focusing Android to make it a more universal OS.4.
It completes the strategic picture for GWT, Gears, and Chrome: Google has a multi-layered strategy to make their applications run on any OS and any browser.
If GWT and Gears on IE on Windows 7 are one end of the spectrum, Chrome OS is the other end.
Microsoft has an OS platform where they can integrate search and the cloud and local applications.
Now Google does, too.I would not be surprised to see an Android application runtime on Chrome OS, alongside the browser/JavaScript runtime.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677843</id>
	<title>Mutually Assured Destruction? I think not...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247505240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think the author of the summary understands the meaning of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).</p><p>If the MAD policy were in effect and "shots" were being fired, both companies would fall...</p><p>If by MAD the author presumes that Google will somehow be able to use its operating system as an assault on Windows, that would also assume that Microsoft could/would use Windows as an assault on Google AND since Google cannot reciprocate in kind, Microsoft would somehow have the ability to kill off Google currently. The day Microsoft hardcodes into Windows the inability to access Google, that'll be the day Microsoft Windows officially begins its death spiral...</p><p>I just don't see this analogy making sense...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think the author of the summary understands the meaning of Mutually Assured Destruction ( MAD ) .If the MAD policy were in effect and " shots " were being fired , both companies would fall...If by MAD the author presumes that Google will somehow be able to use its operating system as an assault on Windows , that would also assume that Microsoft could/would use Windows as an assault on Google AND since Google can not reciprocate in kind , Microsoft would somehow have the ability to kill off Google currently .
The day Microsoft hardcodes into Windows the inability to access Google , that 'll be the day Microsoft Windows officially begins its death spiral...I just do n't see this analogy making sense.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think the author of the summary understands the meaning of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).If the MAD policy were in effect and "shots" were being fired, both companies would fall...If by MAD the author presumes that Google will somehow be able to use its operating system as an assault on Windows, that would also assume that Microsoft could/would use Windows as an assault on Google AND since Google cannot reciprocate in kind, Microsoft would somehow have the ability to kill off Google currently.
The day Microsoft hardcodes into Windows the inability to access Google, that'll be the day Microsoft Windows officially begins its death spiral...I just don't see this analogy making sense...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28687465</id>
	<title>Dear NY Times</title>
	<author>tarscher</author>
	<datestamp>1247602980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't the NY Times suposed to be a quality paper? The article is so full of siliness that it made my head exploid.

"Chrome products are given away, so they bring in no revenue for Google, and they don&#226;(TM)t even provide a better search or advertising experience for their users, the company admits. So why does Google even bother?"
- I can think of 100 reasons why Google Chrome generates money for Google like it has Google SE defaulted, pushing HTML 5 so people spend more time in online applications and thus more chance on clicking on a Google add, push Google Apps,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...

"But thanks to Microsoft&#226;(TM)s deep pockets and fierce screwball reputation, Bing has already accomplished its main purpose: reminding Google executives who they&#226;(TM)re messing with."
- And keeping Google on it toes and creating even better search. Thats called competition and its better for consumers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't the NY Times suposed to be a quality paper ?
The article is so full of siliness that it made my head exploid .
" Chrome products are given away , so they bring in no revenue for Google , and they don   ( TM ) t even provide a better search or advertising experience for their users , the company admits .
So why does Google even bother ?
" - I can think of 100 reasons why Google Chrome generates money for Google like it has Google SE defaulted , pushing HTML 5 so people spend more time in online applications and thus more chance on clicking on a Google add , push Google Apps , .. . " But thanks to Microsoft   ( TM ) s deep pockets and fierce screwball reputation , Bing has already accomplished its main purpose : reminding Google executives who they   ( TM ) re messing with .
" - And keeping Google on it toes and creating even better search .
Thats called competition and its better for consumers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't the NY Times suposed to be a quality paper?
The article is so full of siliness that it made my head exploid.
"Chrome products are given away, so they bring in no revenue for Google, and they donâ(TM)t even provide a better search or advertising experience for their users, the company admits.
So why does Google even bother?
"
- I can think of 100 reasons why Google Chrome generates money for Google like it has Google SE defaulted, pushing HTML 5 so people spend more time in online applications and thus more chance on clicking on a Google add, push Google Apps, ...

"But thanks to Microsoftâ(TM)s deep pockets and fierce screwball reputation, Bing has already accomplished its main purpose: reminding Google executives who theyâ(TM)re messing with.
"
- And keeping Google on it toes and creating even better search.
Thats called competition and its better for consumers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28684453</id>
	<title>Re:How riduculous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247489160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google ads tend to not appear in Firefox for some reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google ads tend to not appear in Firefox for some reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google ads tend to not appear in Firefox for some reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677975</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679065</id>
	<title>direct attack on Microsoft Windows</title>
	<author>rs232</author>
	<datestamp>1247509140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"<i>The battle between Microsoft and Google entered a new phase last week with the announcement of Google's Chrome Operating System -- a direct attack on Microsoft Windows</i>"<br> <br>

Since when was the release of a new Operating System seen solely in terms of the producers of a mediocre GUI OS working out of Redmond. It also begs the question as to all the negative press about a yet to be delivered platform and the total silence regarding Apples offerings.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The battle between Microsoft and Google entered a new phase last week with the announcement of Google 's Chrome Operating System -- a direct attack on Microsoft Windows " Since when was the release of a new Operating System seen solely in terms of the producers of a mediocre GUI OS working out of Redmond .
It also begs the question as to all the negative press about a yet to be delivered platform and the total silence regarding Apples offerings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The battle between Microsoft and Google entered a new phase last week with the announcement of Google's Chrome Operating System -- a direct attack on Microsoft Windows" 

Since when was the release of a new Operating System seen solely in terms of the producers of a mediocre GUI OS working out of Redmond.
It also begs the question as to all the negative press about a yet to be delivered platform and the total silence regarding Apples offerings.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678079</id>
	<title>Not a war</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247505900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a healthy cut throat competion like AMD-Intel, that benefits the consumer.</p><p>I think google keeps MS more honest and forced to push new features faster then they might do without them around.</p><p>As far as OSs go, MS remains the premier platform for running the vast x86 app space. Chrome doesn't change that.</p><p>If it was about a technically superior OS, we would have dumped DOS PCs for Amigas or Macs, or the prop *nixes we had back then.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a healthy cut throat competion like AMD-Intel , that benefits the consumer.I think google keeps MS more honest and forced to push new features faster then they might do without them around.As far as OSs go , MS remains the premier platform for running the vast x86 app space .
Chrome does n't change that.If it was about a technically superior OS , we would have dumped DOS PCs for Amigas or Macs , or the prop * nixes we had back then .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a healthy cut throat competion like AMD-Intel, that benefits the consumer.I think google keeps MS more honest and forced to push new features faster then they might do without them around.As far as OSs go, MS remains the premier platform for running the vast x86 app space.
Chrome doesn't change that.If it was about a technically superior OS, we would have dumped DOS PCs for Amigas or Macs, or the prop *nixes we had back then.
   </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680337</id>
	<title>Google Apps</title>
	<author>nafhan</author>
	<datestamp>1247513280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone please tell me how free online versions of MS Office in Office 2010 are not a response to Google Apps. It's likely that MS will have to make a similar response to Chrome OS.<br>Google makes money off of advertising, and MS makes money from software. If Google can get MS to lower prices or give software away for free (like Google does), it's a win for Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone please tell me how free online versions of MS Office in Office 2010 are not a response to Google Apps .
It 's likely that MS will have to make a similar response to Chrome OS.Google makes money off of advertising , and MS makes money from software .
If Google can get MS to lower prices or give software away for free ( like Google does ) , it 's a win for Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone please tell me how free online versions of MS Office in Office 2010 are not a response to Google Apps.
It's likely that MS will have to make a similar response to Chrome OS.Google makes money off of advertising, and MS makes money from software.
If Google can get MS to lower prices or give software away for free (like Google does), it's a win for Google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677867</id>
	<title>More importantly...</title>
	<author>not already in use</author>
	<datestamp>1247505300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Chrome OS will mark the first "real" year of the Linux desktop.  Goodbye X.Org, and good riddance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Chrome OS will mark the first " real " year of the Linux desktop .
Goodbye X.Org , and good riddance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chrome OS will mark the first "real" year of the Linux desktop.
Goodbye X.Org, and good riddance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678005</id>
	<title>competition is bad</title>
	<author>wjh31</author>
	<datestamp>1247505720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Clearly competition between the two companies is a bad thing. It'll be just like the cold war where both sides made huge technological advances without actually doing any harm to each other or those on the sidelines, very bad news indeed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly competition between the two companies is a bad thing .
It 'll be just like the cold war where both sides made huge technological advances without actually doing any harm to each other or those on the sidelines , very bad news indeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly competition between the two companies is a bad thing.
It'll be just like the cold war where both sides made huge technological advances without actually doing any harm to each other or those on the sidelines, very bad news indeed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677751</id>
	<title>M.A.D.</title>
	<author>Gerafix</author>
	<datestamp>1247505000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only way to win is... CTRL+ALT+DELETE</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only way to win is... CTRL + ALT + DELETE</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only way to win is... CTRL+ALT+DELETE</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677975</id>
	<title>How riduculous</title>
	<author>oodaloop</author>
	<datestamp>1247505660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>FTFA:<p><div class="quote"><p>The vast majority of Google searches are, of course, done on PCs running Microsoft Windows and Internet Explorer. It is not in Google&#226;(TM)s real interest to displace these products, which have facilitated so much of its success.</p></div><p>So Google doesn't make money from people running other OS's?  Google ads don't appear in my browser when I'm running Ubuntu?  Would the Google Chrome OS or browser presumably block its own ads?  Now I understand why this has the tag diecringleydie.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTFA : The vast majority of Google searches are , of course , done on PCs running Microsoft Windows and Internet Explorer .
It is not in Google   ( TM ) s real interest to displace these products , which have facilitated so much of its success.So Google does n't make money from people running other OS 's ?
Google ads do n't appear in my browser when I 'm running Ubuntu ?
Would the Google Chrome OS or browser presumably block its own ads ?
Now I understand why this has the tag diecringleydie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTFA:The vast majority of Google searches are, of course, done on PCs running Microsoft Windows and Internet Explorer.
It is not in Googleâ(TM)s real interest to displace these products, which have facilitated so much of its success.So Google doesn't make money from people running other OS's?
Google ads don't appear in my browser when I'm running Ubuntu?
Would the Google Chrome OS or browser presumably block its own ads?
Now I understand why this has the tag diecringleydie.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28687499</id>
	<title>Defending Cringely</title>
	<author>dafing</author>
	<datestamp>1247603340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I actually enjoy Cringely's work, I've subscribed to his rather good podcasts, where he reads aloud his written articles, no fancy intros or production, just Cringely and his "sexy" voice.
<p>
You can actually follow the Cringely predictions over the years, I picked 2007 for no reason in particular,</p><p><div class="quote"><p>This is my 2007 predictions column, where I first examine my predictions from 2006 to see how well or poorly I did (my multiyear average is around 75 percent) then provide a list of predictions for the current year that are sufficiently vague that I may be able to squint and claim that they were correct, too, a year from now.</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit\_20070105\_001440.html" title="pbs.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit\_20070105\_001440.html</a> [pbs.org]
</p><p>
He makes predictions for the next year, and comments on the ones from the year that has passed.  According to that 2007 article, he was ONLY 60\% right, and hes normally fairly honest with what counts and what doesnt, if hes off by a few months then that doesnt count.  He says there that 60\% was very low for him.
</p><p><div class="quote"><p>That is my worst performance EVER. I got nine of 15 predictions correct for a 60 percent average. In my defense I'll point out that just because I am wrong now doesn't mean I'll still be wrong in another week. Three years ago I predicted Intel would support AMD's 64-bit instruction extensions, but they took 53 weeks to do so, making me off by seven days. I think that by the end of February, 2-3 of these predictions could still swing the other direction.</p></div><p>
To all the people who bash popular writers in pithy comments online, if you think you are up to the job of making predictions about tech, why dont you write a column yourself?  Think about all the big bucks you'd be making for what you already do!  And its "sooooo easy" remember?
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually enjoy Cringely 's work , I 've subscribed to his rather good podcasts , where he reads aloud his written articles , no fancy intros or production , just Cringely and his " sexy " voice .
You can actually follow the Cringely predictions over the years , I picked 2007 for no reason in particular,This is my 2007 predictions column , where I first examine my predictions from 2006 to see how well or poorly I did ( my multiyear average is around 75 percent ) then provide a list of predictions for the current year that are sufficiently vague that I may be able to squint and claim that they were correct , too , a year from now .
http : //www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit \ _20070105 \ _001440.html [ pbs.org ] He makes predictions for the next year , and comments on the ones from the year that has passed .
According to that 2007 article , he was ONLY 60 \ % right , and hes normally fairly honest with what counts and what doesnt , if hes off by a few months then that doesnt count .
He says there that 60 \ % was very low for him .
That is my worst performance EVER .
I got nine of 15 predictions correct for a 60 percent average .
In my defense I 'll point out that just because I am wrong now does n't mean I 'll still be wrong in another week .
Three years ago I predicted Intel would support AMD 's 64-bit instruction extensions , but they took 53 weeks to do so , making me off by seven days .
I think that by the end of February , 2-3 of these predictions could still swing the other direction .
To all the people who bash popular writers in pithy comments online , if you think you are up to the job of making predictions about tech , why dont you write a column yourself ?
Think about all the big bucks you 'd be making for what you already do !
And its " sooooo easy " remember ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually enjoy Cringely's work, I've subscribed to his rather good podcasts, where he reads aloud his written articles, no fancy intros or production, just Cringely and his "sexy" voice.
You can actually follow the Cringely predictions over the years, I picked 2007 for no reason in particular,This is my 2007 predictions column, where I first examine my predictions from 2006 to see how well or poorly I did (my multiyear average is around 75 percent) then provide a list of predictions for the current year that are sufficiently vague that I may be able to squint and claim that they were correct, too, a year from now.
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit\_20070105\_001440.html [pbs.org]

He makes predictions for the next year, and comments on the ones from the year that has passed.
According to that 2007 article, he was ONLY 60\% right, and hes normally fairly honest with what counts and what doesnt, if hes off by a few months then that doesnt count.
He says there that 60\% was very low for him.
That is my worst performance EVER.
I got nine of 15 predictions correct for a 60 percent average.
In my defense I'll point out that just because I am wrong now doesn't mean I'll still be wrong in another week.
Three years ago I predicted Intel would support AMD's 64-bit instruction extensions, but they took 53 weeks to do so, making me off by seven days.
I think that by the end of February, 2-3 of these predictions could still swing the other direction.
To all the people who bash popular writers in pithy comments online, if you think you are up to the job of making predictions about tech, why dont you write a column yourself?
Think about all the big bucks you'd be making for what you already do!
And its "sooooo easy" remember?

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678393</id>
	<title>Re:Security an issue with Chrome?</title>
	<author>RiotingPacifist</author>
	<datestamp>1247507040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A mistake in implementation is very different from systematic design problems. Chrome has been designed in a way that even with this code bug it held its own in every hacking competition. desktop linux has its own share of design problems running X as root isn't a serious problem because there are plenty of checks done, however it would be better if X was designed to not need root at all!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A mistake in implementation is very different from systematic design problems .
Chrome has been designed in a way that even with this code bug it held its own in every hacking competition .
desktop linux has its own share of design problems running X as root is n't a serious problem because there are plenty of checks done , however it would be better if X was designed to not need root at all !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A mistake in implementation is very different from systematic design problems.
Chrome has been designed in a way that even with this code bug it held its own in every hacking competition.
desktop linux has its own share of design problems running X as root isn't a serious problem because there are plenty of checks done, however it would be better if X was designed to not need root at all!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678269</id>
	<title>Cringe-worthy analysis</title>
	<author>Renderer of Evil</author>
	<datestamp>1247506560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What Google's chief executive, Eric Schmidt, has to fear more than anything else is that he'll awake one day to learn that the Google search engine suddenly doesn't work on any Windows computers: something happened overnight and what worked yesterday doesn't work today. It would have to be an act of deliberate sabotage on Microsoft's part and blatantly illegal, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen. Microsoft would claim ignorance and innocence and take days, weeks or months to reverse the effect, during which time Google would have lost billions.</p></div></blockquote><p>Jesus.</p><p>This is like bad science fiction, written before the internet was invented - by Dan Brown. Cringely is such a tool.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What Google 's chief executive , Eric Schmidt , has to fear more than anything else is that he 'll awake one day to learn that the Google search engine suddenly does n't work on any Windows computers : something happened overnight and what worked yesterday does n't work today .
It would have to be an act of deliberate sabotage on Microsoft 's part and blatantly illegal , but that does n't mean it could n't happen .
Microsoft would claim ignorance and innocence and take days , weeks or months to reverse the effect , during which time Google would have lost billions.Jesus.This is like bad science fiction , written before the internet was invented - by Dan Brown .
Cringely is such a tool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What Google's chief executive, Eric Schmidt, has to fear more than anything else is that he'll awake one day to learn that the Google search engine suddenly doesn't work on any Windows computers: something happened overnight and what worked yesterday doesn't work today.
It would have to be an act of deliberate sabotage on Microsoft's part and blatantly illegal, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen.
Microsoft would claim ignorance and innocence and take days, weeks or months to reverse the effect, during which time Google would have lost billions.Jesus.This is like bad science fiction, written before the internet was invented - by Dan Brown.
Cringely is such a tool.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677875</id>
	<title>Chrome OS being open source...</title>
	<author>Lord Satri</author>
	<datestamp>1247505360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, consumers won't care at first, but the fact that Chrome OS is open source will have, in my opinion, a long term impact on the industry and thus eventually the consumers. Sorry, I would bet Cringely is wrong on that one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , consumers wo n't care at first , but the fact that Chrome OS is open source will have , in my opinion , a long term impact on the industry and thus eventually the consumers .
Sorry , I would bet Cringely is wrong on that one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, consumers won't care at first, but the fact that Chrome OS is open source will have, in my opinion, a long term impact on the industry and thus eventually the consumers.
Sorry, I would bet Cringely is wrong on that one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678255</id>
	<title>Direct attack? I beg to differ</title>
	<author>bogaboga</author>
	<datestamp>1247506440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>..."with the announcement of Google's Chrome Operating System -- a direct attack on Microsoft Windows..."</p></div><p>I do not think so. Microsoft unlike Google, is involved in much more...that is Server and Desktop  Operating Systems and Media Players.</p><p>Google's move is an indirect attack but not a direct one.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... " with the announcement of Google 's Chrome Operating System -- a direct attack on Microsoft Windows... " I do not think so .
Microsoft unlike Google , is involved in much more...that is Server and Desktop Operating Systems and Media Players.Google 's move is an indirect attack but not a direct one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ..."with the announcement of Google's Chrome Operating System -- a direct attack on Microsoft Windows..."I do not think so.
Microsoft unlike Google, is involved in much more...that is Server and Desktop  Operating Systems and Media Players.Google's move is an indirect attack but not a direct one.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677913</id>
	<title>Re:I hope Microsoft gets stuffed by Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247505480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you had been talking about anything other than M$ you would be a -1 Troll.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you had been talking about anything other than M $ you would be a -1 Troll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you had been talking about anything other than M$ you would be a -1 Troll.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680039</id>
	<title>ChromeOS = Linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247512260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally I think "google" will win this. I don't mean google when I say that I really mean Linux. Basically if google the company throws a ton of money at Linux, Linux will rapidly become more than good enough and microsoft will be screwed. Let's not forget that changes google make to Linux become open source code themselves. If Adobe and Autodesk get onboard then Microsoft and Apple can both kiss the high end 3D production/2D design markets gone. This is actually a pretty big threat to Apple's traditional core market. Of course if the design/multimedia market falls to Linux how long do you think before home users and gamers come across? Especially if Valve suddenly announce Steam and Source engine ports (Postal 3 is definately getting a linux port and it is source based so this isn't impossible.) As for game compatability, all google have to do is get their OS onto people's machines before directx 11 gets into full swing. Wine already runs directx 9.0c and when I say runs I mean I'm playing Assassin's creed, Overlord, and Burnout Paradise right now. throw 20 fulltime developers at the project for a year and wine will run any game. Throw 100-200 and most app compatability issues will disappear. Seriously though, aside from gamers noone else will have many problems switching especially with programs like virtualbox etc to virtualise software. The main thing is cleaning up the desktop/drivers a bit and getting partners to port their apps. Once that's done most places will be ready to jump.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally I think " google " will win this .
I do n't mean google when I say that I really mean Linux .
Basically if google the company throws a ton of money at Linux , Linux will rapidly become more than good enough and microsoft will be screwed .
Let 's not forget that changes google make to Linux become open source code themselves .
If Adobe and Autodesk get onboard then Microsoft and Apple can both kiss the high end 3D production/2D design markets gone .
This is actually a pretty big threat to Apple 's traditional core market .
Of course if the design/multimedia market falls to Linux how long do you think before home users and gamers come across ?
Especially if Valve suddenly announce Steam and Source engine ports ( Postal 3 is definately getting a linux port and it is source based so this is n't impossible .
) As for game compatability , all google have to do is get their OS onto people 's machines before directx 11 gets into full swing .
Wine already runs directx 9.0c and when I say runs I mean I 'm playing Assassin 's creed , Overlord , and Burnout Paradise right now .
throw 20 fulltime developers at the project for a year and wine will run any game .
Throw 100-200 and most app compatability issues will disappear .
Seriously though , aside from gamers noone else will have many problems switching especially with programs like virtualbox etc to virtualise software .
The main thing is cleaning up the desktop/drivers a bit and getting partners to port their apps .
Once that 's done most places will be ready to jump .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally I think "google" will win this.
I don't mean google when I say that I really mean Linux.
Basically if google the company throws a ton of money at Linux, Linux will rapidly become more than good enough and microsoft will be screwed.
Let's not forget that changes google make to Linux become open source code themselves.
If Adobe and Autodesk get onboard then Microsoft and Apple can both kiss the high end 3D production/2D design markets gone.
This is actually a pretty big threat to Apple's traditional core market.
Of course if the design/multimedia market falls to Linux how long do you think before home users and gamers come across?
Especially if Valve suddenly announce Steam and Source engine ports (Postal 3 is definately getting a linux port and it is source based so this isn't impossible.
) As for game compatability, all google have to do is get their OS onto people's machines before directx 11 gets into full swing.
Wine already runs directx 9.0c and when I say runs I mean I'm playing Assassin's creed, Overlord, and Burnout Paradise right now.
throw 20 fulltime developers at the project for a year and wine will run any game.
Throw 100-200 and most app compatability issues will disappear.
Seriously though, aside from gamers noone else will have many problems switching especially with programs like virtualbox etc to virtualise software.
The main thing is cleaning up the desktop/drivers a bit and getting partners to port their apps.
Once that's done most places will be ready to jump.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677737</id>
	<title>not good?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247504940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's true..in the sense that now Microsoft and Google now actually have competitors (God forbid). I say let 'em duke it out and may the best OS win.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's true..in the sense that now Microsoft and Google now actually have competitors ( God forbid ) .
I say let 'em duke it out and may the best OS win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's true..in the sense that now Microsoft and Google now actually have competitors (God forbid).
I say let 'em duke it out and may the best OS win.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679023</id>
	<title>Re:Mutually Assured Destruction? I think not...</title>
	<author>Synchis</author>
	<datestamp>1247509020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>indeed, my first thought after reading that part of TFA was: "This *might* make sense... if you ignore every other browser on the planet".</p><p>This article conveniently ignores all the other players in the industry right now. To think that this is a 2 player game in todays climate is, to put it lightly, short-sighted.</p><p>He references Apple briefly, but only in the iPod/iPhone markets, and forgets OSX and Safari. He references Chrome and IE, but leaves out one of the most prominant players in the browser market, Firefox. He mentions Chrome OS and Windows, but leaves out Linux. These are real players, all with the capacity to succeed in the market. Microsoft knows this, Google knows this, thats why they continue to strive towards more diverse markets, towards better products.</p><p>Competition in the marketplace can only be good for the consumer, even if it does mean the death of one company or the other.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>indeed , my first thought after reading that part of TFA was : " This * might * make sense... if you ignore every other browser on the planet " .This article conveniently ignores all the other players in the industry right now .
To think that this is a 2 player game in todays climate is , to put it lightly , short-sighted.He references Apple briefly , but only in the iPod/iPhone markets , and forgets OSX and Safari .
He references Chrome and IE , but leaves out one of the most prominant players in the browser market , Firefox .
He mentions Chrome OS and Windows , but leaves out Linux .
These are real players , all with the capacity to succeed in the market .
Microsoft knows this , Google knows this , thats why they continue to strive towards more diverse markets , towards better products.Competition in the marketplace can only be good for the consumer , even if it does mean the death of one company or the other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>indeed, my first thought after reading that part of TFA was: "This *might* make sense... if you ignore every other browser on the planet".This article conveniently ignores all the other players in the industry right now.
To think that this is a 2 player game in todays climate is, to put it lightly, short-sighted.He references Apple briefly, but only in the iPod/iPhone markets, and forgets OSX and Safari.
He references Chrome and IE, but leaves out one of the most prominant players in the browser market, Firefox.
He mentions Chrome OS and Windows, but leaves out Linux.
These are real players, all with the capacity to succeed in the market.
Microsoft knows this, Google knows this, thats why they continue to strive towards more diverse markets, towards better products.Competition in the marketplace can only be good for the consumer, even if it does mean the death of one company or the other.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677747</id>
	<title>The outcome:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247505000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to say that Firefox is getting a lot worse lately. The user experience is in serious need of improvement and development is the pits. I installed the latest "big deal" Firefox update on June 30th. (For some reason they skipped a full four secondary updates, but whatever.) Upon restarting, which took several minutes, I began using <a href="http://www.trollaxor.com/2009/07/some-questions-comments-about-firefox.html" title="trollaxor.com" rel="nofollow">Firefox 3.5</a> [trollaxor.com].</p><p>At first, Firefox seemed strangely familiar. I thought they had changed very little unnecessarily until I visited the <a href="http://acid3.acidtests.org/" title="acidtests.org" rel="nofollow">Acid3</a> [acidtests.org] test. Lo and behold, I was still using Firefox 3.0.0.11. What the fuck? I manually invoked <i>Check for Updates</i> and repeated my first attempt only to find, upon restarting, the same thing.</p><p>Finally in desperation I downloaded the installer manually from <a href="http://www.mozilla.com/" title="mozilla.com" rel="nofollow">Mozilla</a> [mozilla.com]. The install ran surprisingly quickly and, after a few minutes, I was launched with the new version. I had to check, though, because again I thought it looked like very little had changed.</p><p>In fact, did Mozilla bother changing anything beside the JavaScript? The new TraceMonkey is great and all, but they could have at least made it <i>look</i> like they were working on something else. When the most noticeable improvement is the "Know Your Rights" button (which everyone ignores) one really starts to wonder what the fuss was all about.</p><p>Well, after the three tries it took to upgrade, I found my profile wouldn't migrate. This was a mess, but I was able to eventually retrieve my bookmarks from a long, arcane file path in a hidden directory. But then upon visiting my bookmarked sites I found that almost none of my add-ons are compatible with it. Therefore my browser is almost entirely functionless.</p><p>The bookmark tool itself could use a polishing. It's a mess and has been since version 1.0. If a browser is meant to render and organize content, Firefox surely falls down in this area. Why does it take me several minutes to slosh through the GUI just to make a new folder and alphabetize some bookmarks in it? Not to mention the damned Bookmarks toolbar, which takes up too much damn space and can't be turned off.</p><p>And speaking of the GUI, it's slow as Hell slowget rid of the proprietary XUL and just hardcode the damned interface already!</p><p>I also have to mention memory use. On my system, Firefox was swallowing an incredible 400 MB with only a simple HTML 4 table open. <i>400 MB?!</i> I blame this on the Firefox team's use of C++, where memory management is about as easy as herding cats. Likewise Firefox is a slow, bloated nightmare. (For a contrast, there's <a href="http://www.apple.com/safari/" title="apple.com" rel="nofollow">Safari</a> [apple.com], which is written in Objective C and is very small and efficient.)</p><p>Most of the time I have heavy JavaScript sites open. I shudder to think how much Firefox eats then, and I'll be sure to check in the future. No wonder my system tends to slow down when I've left Firefox open for days on end with dynamically updating pages and RSS feeds. Clearly, Firefox leaks memory like a cracked sieve in a waterfall.</p><p>With Firefox smelling more and more like crapware, I started to dig a little, first on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox/" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia</a> [wikipedia.org] and then on the <a href="http://www.mozilla.org/community/developer-forums.html" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">Mozilla Development Forums</a> [mozilla.org]. It turns out that my observations are part of a larger pattern of Firefox quality issues and development customs. The Mozilla developers are a bunch of arrogant, abusive shitheads.</p><p>For starters, they're still running all tabs in the same process. This is something IE7 and Safari 3 have had right for years. So if a plugin crashes or a page takes forever to finish rendering, everything's stuck. You can't even switch tabs to another page! And Firefox 3.5 is a "milestone" release? Firefox 3.6 and 4 are milestones too, and process-per-tab isn't scheduled for either.</p><p>Developer interaction with Firefox users is stilted too. Som</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to say that Firefox is getting a lot worse lately .
The user experience is in serious need of improvement and development is the pits .
I installed the latest " big deal " Firefox update on June 30th .
( For some reason they skipped a full four secondary updates , but whatever .
) Upon restarting , which took several minutes , I began using Firefox 3.5 [ trollaxor.com ] .At first , Firefox seemed strangely familiar .
I thought they had changed very little unnecessarily until I visited the Acid3 [ acidtests.org ] test .
Lo and behold , I was still using Firefox 3.0.0.11 .
What the fuck ?
I manually invoked Check for Updates and repeated my first attempt only to find , upon restarting , the same thing.Finally in desperation I downloaded the installer manually from Mozilla [ mozilla.com ] .
The install ran surprisingly quickly and , after a few minutes , I was launched with the new version .
I had to check , though , because again I thought it looked like very little had changed.In fact , did Mozilla bother changing anything beside the JavaScript ?
The new TraceMonkey is great and all , but they could have at least made it look like they were working on something else .
When the most noticeable improvement is the " Know Your Rights " button ( which everyone ignores ) one really starts to wonder what the fuss was all about.Well , after the three tries it took to upgrade , I found my profile would n't migrate .
This was a mess , but I was able to eventually retrieve my bookmarks from a long , arcane file path in a hidden directory .
But then upon visiting my bookmarked sites I found that almost none of my add-ons are compatible with it .
Therefore my browser is almost entirely functionless.The bookmark tool itself could use a polishing .
It 's a mess and has been since version 1.0 .
If a browser is meant to render and organize content , Firefox surely falls down in this area .
Why does it take me several minutes to slosh through the GUI just to make a new folder and alphabetize some bookmarks in it ?
Not to mention the damned Bookmarks toolbar , which takes up too much damn space and ca n't be turned off.And speaking of the GUI , it 's slow as Hell slowget rid of the proprietary XUL and just hardcode the damned interface already ! I also have to mention memory use .
On my system , Firefox was swallowing an incredible 400 MB with only a simple HTML 4 table open .
400 MB ? !
I blame this on the Firefox team 's use of C + + , where memory management is about as easy as herding cats .
Likewise Firefox is a slow , bloated nightmare .
( For a contrast , there 's Safari [ apple.com ] , which is written in Objective C and is very small and efficient .
) Most of the time I have heavy JavaScript sites open .
I shudder to think how much Firefox eats then , and I 'll be sure to check in the future .
No wonder my system tends to slow down when I 've left Firefox open for days on end with dynamically updating pages and RSS feeds .
Clearly , Firefox leaks memory like a cracked sieve in a waterfall.With Firefox smelling more and more like crapware , I started to dig a little , first on Wikipedia [ wikipedia.org ] and then on the Mozilla Development Forums [ mozilla.org ] .
It turns out that my observations are part of a larger pattern of Firefox quality issues and development customs .
The Mozilla developers are a bunch of arrogant , abusive shitheads.For starters , they 're still running all tabs in the same process .
This is something IE7 and Safari 3 have had right for years .
So if a plugin crashes or a page takes forever to finish rendering , everything 's stuck .
You ca n't even switch tabs to another page !
And Firefox 3.5 is a " milestone " release ?
Firefox 3.6 and 4 are milestones too , and process-per-tab is n't scheduled for either.Developer interaction with Firefox users is stilted too .
Som</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to say that Firefox is getting a lot worse lately.
The user experience is in serious need of improvement and development is the pits.
I installed the latest "big deal" Firefox update on June 30th.
(For some reason they skipped a full four secondary updates, but whatever.
) Upon restarting, which took several minutes, I began using Firefox 3.5 [trollaxor.com].At first, Firefox seemed strangely familiar.
I thought they had changed very little unnecessarily until I visited the Acid3 [acidtests.org] test.
Lo and behold, I was still using Firefox 3.0.0.11.
What the fuck?
I manually invoked Check for Updates and repeated my first attempt only to find, upon restarting, the same thing.Finally in desperation I downloaded the installer manually from Mozilla [mozilla.com].
The install ran surprisingly quickly and, after a few minutes, I was launched with the new version.
I had to check, though, because again I thought it looked like very little had changed.In fact, did Mozilla bother changing anything beside the JavaScript?
The new TraceMonkey is great and all, but they could have at least made it look like they were working on something else.
When the most noticeable improvement is the "Know Your Rights" button (which everyone ignores) one really starts to wonder what the fuss was all about.Well, after the three tries it took to upgrade, I found my profile wouldn't migrate.
This was a mess, but I was able to eventually retrieve my bookmarks from a long, arcane file path in a hidden directory.
But then upon visiting my bookmarked sites I found that almost none of my add-ons are compatible with it.
Therefore my browser is almost entirely functionless.The bookmark tool itself could use a polishing.
It's a mess and has been since version 1.0.
If a browser is meant to render and organize content, Firefox surely falls down in this area.
Why does it take me several minutes to slosh through the GUI just to make a new folder and alphabetize some bookmarks in it?
Not to mention the damned Bookmarks toolbar, which takes up too much damn space and can't be turned off.And speaking of the GUI, it's slow as Hell slowget rid of the proprietary XUL and just hardcode the damned interface already!I also have to mention memory use.
On my system, Firefox was swallowing an incredible 400 MB with only a simple HTML 4 table open.
400 MB?!
I blame this on the Firefox team's use of C++, where memory management is about as easy as herding cats.
Likewise Firefox is a slow, bloated nightmare.
(For a contrast, there's Safari [apple.com], which is written in Objective C and is very small and efficient.
)Most of the time I have heavy JavaScript sites open.
I shudder to think how much Firefox eats then, and I'll be sure to check in the future.
No wonder my system tends to slow down when I've left Firefox open for days on end with dynamically updating pages and RSS feeds.
Clearly, Firefox leaks memory like a cracked sieve in a waterfall.With Firefox smelling more and more like crapware, I started to dig a little, first on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] and then on the Mozilla Development Forums [mozilla.org].
It turns out that my observations are part of a larger pattern of Firefox quality issues and development customs.
The Mozilla developers are a bunch of arrogant, abusive shitheads.For starters, they're still running all tabs in the same process.
This is something IE7 and Safari 3 have had right for years.
So if a plugin crashes or a page takes forever to finish rendering, everything's stuck.
You can't even switch tabs to another page!
And Firefox 3.5 is a "milestone" release?
Firefox 3.6 and 4 are milestones too, and process-per-tab isn't scheduled for either.Developer interaction with Firefox users is stilted too.
Som</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678285</id>
	<title>Attack on Microsoft?</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1247506560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chrome the browser wasn't much of an attack on IE. Is Chrome the OS an attack on Windows?</p><p>You can argue that Chrome the OS is more likely to cannibalize the Linux and Apple market. Consider that Chrome is supposed to be this fast, sleek, secure OS. It is built upon a posix-compliant kernel with a new windowing system thrown on top. Steve Jobs health is in question, Apple's stock keeps dipping and people are questioning the future of Apple. Honestly, I think Redmond is offended by Chrome. But Cupertino is the company that is more afraid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chrome the browser was n't much of an attack on IE .
Is Chrome the OS an attack on Windows ? You can argue that Chrome the OS is more likely to cannibalize the Linux and Apple market .
Consider that Chrome is supposed to be this fast , sleek , secure OS .
It is built upon a posix-compliant kernel with a new windowing system thrown on top .
Steve Jobs health is in question , Apple 's stock keeps dipping and people are questioning the future of Apple .
Honestly , I think Redmond is offended by Chrome .
But Cupertino is the company that is more afraid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chrome the browser wasn't much of an attack on IE.
Is Chrome the OS an attack on Windows?You can argue that Chrome the OS is more likely to cannibalize the Linux and Apple market.
Consider that Chrome is supposed to be this fast, sleek, secure OS.
It is built upon a posix-compliant kernel with a new windowing system thrown on top.
Steve Jobs health is in question, Apple's stock keeps dipping and people are questioning the future of Apple.
Honestly, I think Redmond is offended by Chrome.
But Cupertino is the company that is more afraid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28682007</id>
	<title>Re:First Nuclear Weapon Equipped Post</title>
	<author>thepieman</author>
	<datestamp>1247476980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...this won't be destroying anything. Companies respond to competition by growing larger and increasein value. That is good for everyone. Crome might do well with people who only care about browsing, and like speed while doing so. But that will only happen is a ton of advertising happens, which they havn't done in the past. Microsoft will always own the gaming community(which I am a part of), and without a huge boom in Crome, will continue to own the most of the market.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...this wo n't be destroying anything .
Companies respond to competition by growing larger and increasein value .
That is good for everyone .
Crome might do well with people who only care about browsing , and like speed while doing so .
But that will only happen is a ton of advertising happens , which they hav n't done in the past .
Microsoft will always own the gaming community ( which I am a part of ) , and without a huge boom in Crome , will continue to own the most of the market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...this won't be destroying anything.
Companies respond to competition by growing larger and increasein value.
That is good for everyone.
Crome might do well with people who only care about browsing, and like speed while doing so.
But that will only happen is a ton of advertising happens, which they havn't done in the past.
Microsoft will always own the gaming community(which I am a part of), and without a huge boom in Crome, will continue to own the most of the market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678227</id>
	<title>Nothing good can come from Microsoft vs. Google?</title>
	<author>Zakabog</author>
	<datestamp>1247506380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm actually really excited about the idea of a Google backed Linux distro (which is what it seems like they're making). They've got the money to hire a team to make a wonderful looking desktop manager while also having the programming know how to make the thing beautifully slim and fast. Plus with Google's backing perhaps there's a chance more software will be ported to/made to run on Linux and perhaps more people will be enticed to try the new "Google laptop" which would just be a netbook running Google's flavor of Linux. I don't see how Google opening up Linux to a larger user base could be a bad thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm actually really excited about the idea of a Google backed Linux distro ( which is what it seems like they 're making ) .
They 've got the money to hire a team to make a wonderful looking desktop manager while also having the programming know how to make the thing beautifully slim and fast .
Plus with Google 's backing perhaps there 's a chance more software will be ported to/made to run on Linux and perhaps more people will be enticed to try the new " Google laptop " which would just be a netbook running Google 's flavor of Linux .
I do n't see how Google opening up Linux to a larger user base could be a bad thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm actually really excited about the idea of a Google backed Linux distro (which is what it seems like they're making).
They've got the money to hire a team to make a wonderful looking desktop manager while also having the programming know how to make the thing beautifully slim and fast.
Plus with Google's backing perhaps there's a chance more software will be ported to/made to run on Linux and perhaps more people will be enticed to try the new "Google laptop" which would just be a netbook running Google's flavor of Linux.
I don't see how Google opening up Linux to a larger user base could be a bad thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28690445</id>
	<title>Re:Chrome OS being open source...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247583600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Long term? What does that mean anymore?</p><p>I started using Linux in 1999. 10 years later, the vast, vast majority of people still don't care. If Google succeeds in this completely nonsensical move, they won't be playing the FOSS card and people will still not care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Long term ?
What does that mean anymore ? I started using Linux in 1999 .
10 years later , the vast , vast majority of people still do n't care .
If Google succeeds in this completely nonsensical move , they wo n't be playing the FOSS card and people will still not care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Long term?
What does that mean anymore?I started using Linux in 1999.
10 years later, the vast, vast majority of people still don't care.
If Google succeeds in this completely nonsensical move, they won't be playing the FOSS card and people will still not care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677875</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679909</id>
	<title>Re:Chrome OS Direct Attack on Windows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247511840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Deleter there own documentation? That explains a lot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Deleter there own documentation ?
That explains a lot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Deleter there own documentation?
That explains a lot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678291</id>
	<title>Different final targets</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1247506620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>Windows=Local Desktop<br>Chrome OS=Internet Desktop<br><br>Want Photoshop? Games? (local) Office? virustrojansmailwares? There Microsoft is king.<br><br>But want the fastest and more secure full internet based desktop? There that be microsoft or not is not relevant (well, the secure part could matter). You could run Windows, Linux, OS X and you'll get most if not all that will be used thru Chrome OS. What it will be doing is a base reference of speed and security. If Microsoft want to defeat that, should fix those 2 points, not doing a blog campaign all along the media criticizing Google for being big brother, or not being able to run photoshop, or whatever else that they are focusing it leaving away just the 2 critical points that matters there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows = Local DesktopChrome OS = Internet DesktopWant Photoshop ?
Games ? ( local ) Office ?
virustrojansmailwares ? There Microsoft is king.But want the fastest and more secure full internet based desktop ?
There that be microsoft or not is not relevant ( well , the secure part could matter ) .
You could run Windows , Linux , OS X and you 'll get most if not all that will be used thru Chrome OS .
What it will be doing is a base reference of speed and security .
If Microsoft want to defeat that , should fix those 2 points , not doing a blog campaign all along the media criticizing Google for being big brother , or not being able to run photoshop , or whatever else that they are focusing it leaving away just the 2 critical points that matters there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows=Local DesktopChrome OS=Internet DesktopWant Photoshop?
Games? (local) Office?
virustrojansmailwares? There Microsoft is king.But want the fastest and more secure full internet based desktop?
There that be microsoft or not is not relevant (well, the secure part could matter).
You could run Windows, Linux, OS X and you'll get most if not all that will be used thru Chrome OS.
What it will be doing is a base reference of speed and security.
If Microsoft want to defeat that, should fix those 2 points, not doing a blog campaign all along the media criticizing Google for being big brother, or not being able to run photoshop, or whatever else that they are focusing it leaving away just the 2 critical points that matters there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678385</id>
	<title>Re:More importantly...</title>
	<author>Zigurd</author>
	<datestamp>1247506980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>X client for Chrome OS written using GWT in 3, 2, 1...</p><p>Seriously though, Chrome OS will be more hackable than a phone OS, which, in the form of Android is pretty open anyway. So even if Google intends the userland to be primarily running in the Chrome javaScript runtime environment, it seems inevitable that X and general-purpose Linux desktop apps will find their way onto Chrome OS screens.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>X client for Chrome OS written using GWT in 3 , 2 , 1...Seriously though , Chrome OS will be more hackable than a phone OS , which , in the form of Android is pretty open anyway .
So even if Google intends the userland to be primarily running in the Chrome javaScript runtime environment , it seems inevitable that X and general-purpose Linux desktop apps will find their way onto Chrome OS screens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>X client for Chrome OS written using GWT in 3, 2, 1...Seriously though, Chrome OS will be more hackable than a phone OS, which, in the form of Android is pretty open anyway.
So even if Google intends the userland to be primarily running in the Chrome javaScript runtime environment, it seems inevitable that X and general-purpose Linux desktop apps will find their way onto Chrome OS screens.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678461</id>
	<title>YOU FAIL IT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247507280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>erosion of user more stable BUWLA, or BSD For the record, .I to this. For about bylaws</htmltext>
<tokenext>erosion of user more stable BUWLA , or BSD For the record , .I to this .
For about bylaws</tokentext>
<sentencetext>erosion of user more stable BUWLA, or BSD For the record, .I to this.
For about bylaws</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679545</id>
	<title>Re:Cringe-worthy analysis</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1247510760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>What Google's chief executive, Eric Schmidt, has to fear more than anything else is that he'll awake one day to learn that the Google search engine suddenly doesn't work on any Windows computers: something happened overnight and what worked yesterday doesn't work today. It would have to be an act of deliberate sabotage on Microsoft's part and blatantly illegal, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen. Microsoft would claim ignorance and innocence and take days, weeks or months to reverse the effect, during which time Google would have lost billions.</p></div></blockquote><p>Jesus.</p><p>This is like bad science fiction, written before the internet was invented - by Dan Brown. Cringely is such a tool.</p></div><p>Not only is it bad science fiction, but Microsoft's customers would scream bloody murder. Additionally, to what degree is it possible for MS to write a "patch" that makes the Google search engine the ONLY web functionality not work on Windows computers. I'm pretty confident that any "patch" that made Google search not work would break lots of web sites.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What Google 's chief executive , Eric Schmidt , has to fear more than anything else is that he 'll awake one day to learn that the Google search engine suddenly does n't work on any Windows computers : something happened overnight and what worked yesterday does n't work today .
It would have to be an act of deliberate sabotage on Microsoft 's part and blatantly illegal , but that does n't mean it could n't happen .
Microsoft would claim ignorance and innocence and take days , weeks or months to reverse the effect , during which time Google would have lost billions.Jesus.This is like bad science fiction , written before the internet was invented - by Dan Brown .
Cringely is such a tool.Not only is it bad science fiction , but Microsoft 's customers would scream bloody murder .
Additionally , to what degree is it possible for MS to write a " patch " that makes the Google search engine the ONLY web functionality not work on Windows computers .
I 'm pretty confident that any " patch " that made Google search not work would break lots of web sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What Google's chief executive, Eric Schmidt, has to fear more than anything else is that he'll awake one day to learn that the Google search engine suddenly doesn't work on any Windows computers: something happened overnight and what worked yesterday doesn't work today.
It would have to be an act of deliberate sabotage on Microsoft's part and blatantly illegal, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen.
Microsoft would claim ignorance and innocence and take days, weeks or months to reverse the effect, during which time Google would have lost billions.Jesus.This is like bad science fiction, written before the internet was invented - by Dan Brown.
Cringely is such a tool.Not only is it bad science fiction, but Microsoft's customers would scream bloody murder.
Additionally, to what degree is it possible for MS to write a "patch" that makes the Google search engine the ONLY web functionality not work on Windows computers.
I'm pretty confident that any "patch" that made Google search not work would break lots of web sites.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678269</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680549</id>
	<title>Re:And Bing...?</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1247514060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why should either be a declaration of war? And what's with this comment about microsoft hard-coding Windows to not allow people to use Google (what, are they so desperate to get rid of Google that they will block Google's IP addresses, or has Cringely never heard of Firefox?)<br>.<br>This whole thing sounds like a paranoid conspiracy theory, written by a fifteen year-old schoolgirl who just saw a Veronica Mars marathon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should either be a declaration of war ?
And what 's with this comment about microsoft hard-coding Windows to not allow people to use Google ( what , are they so desperate to get rid of Google that they will block Google 's IP addresses , or has Cringely never heard of Firefox ?
) .This whole thing sounds like a paranoid conspiracy theory , written by a fifteen year-old schoolgirl who just saw a Veronica Mars marathon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should either be a declaration of war?
And what's with this comment about microsoft hard-coding Windows to not allow people to use Google (what, are they so desperate to get rid of Google that they will block Google's IP addresses, or has Cringely never heard of Firefox?
).This whole thing sounds like a paranoid conspiracy theory, written by a fifteen year-old schoolgirl who just saw a Veronica Mars marathon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677919</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680535</id>
	<title>Re:Cringe-worthy analysis</title>
	<author>gbarules2999</author>
	<datestamp>1247514060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is like bad science fiction, written before the internet was invented - by Dan Brown.</p></div><p>You can just see it now - Microsoft has been infiltrated by the Illuminatti...developers start disappearing in a seemingly random fashion...and a mysterious dead body with a chair leg wedged into the chest...who turns out to support free software...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is like bad science fiction , written before the internet was invented - by Dan Brown.You can just see it now - Microsoft has been infiltrated by the Illuminatti...developers start disappearing in a seemingly random fashion...and a mysterious dead body with a chair leg wedged into the chest...who turns out to support free software.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is like bad science fiction, written before the internet was invented - by Dan Brown.You can just see it now - Microsoft has been infiltrated by the Illuminatti...developers start disappearing in a seemingly random fashion...and a mysterious dead body with a chair leg wedged into the chest...who turns out to support free software...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678269</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680603</id>
	<title>Re:And Bing...?</title>
	<author>networkconsultant</author>
	<datestamp>1247514300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bing still sucks, all be it less than the last microsoft search what was it "Life? Live? Electrical?" I forget I guess I'll have to google it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing still sucks , all be it less than the last microsoft search what was it " Life ?
Live ? Electrical ?
" I forget I guess I 'll have to google it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing still sucks, all be it less than the last microsoft search what was it "Life?
Live? Electrical?
" I forget I guess I'll have to google it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677919</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679339</id>
	<title>Re:First Nuclear Weapon Equipped Post</title>
	<author>gb506</author>
	<datestamp>1247510160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>
Well, it isn't only GWB - Jimmy Carter, too, mispronounced the word in the exact same fashion. The difference is that while Bush was never associated with nuclear powerplants or propulsion in any way, the same cannot be said of Carter, as he was in the middle of U.S. Navy nuclear powerplant operator training when his father died, an event which caused Carter to resign his Navy commission. In other words, Bush may have consistently mangled the word, and that's bad, but not nearly as bad as Carter mangling it when he most certainly knew better and should have had the habit knocked out by Rickover's crew. Carter's the bigger dolt in this case.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it is n't only GWB - Jimmy Carter , too , mispronounced the word in the exact same fashion .
The difference is that while Bush was never associated with nuclear powerplants or propulsion in any way , the same can not be said of Carter , as he was in the middle of U.S. Navy nuclear powerplant operator training when his father died , an event which caused Carter to resign his Navy commission .
In other words , Bush may have consistently mangled the word , and that 's bad , but not nearly as bad as Carter mangling it when he most certainly knew better and should have had the habit knocked out by Rickover 's crew .
Carter 's the bigger dolt in this case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Well, it isn't only GWB - Jimmy Carter, too, mispronounced the word in the exact same fashion.
The difference is that while Bush was never associated with nuclear powerplants or propulsion in any way, the same cannot be said of Carter, as he was in the middle of U.S. Navy nuclear powerplant operator training when his father died, an event which caused Carter to resign his Navy commission.
In other words, Bush may have consistently mangled the word, and that's bad, but not nearly as bad as Carter mangling it when he most certainly knew better and should have had the habit knocked out by Rickover's crew.
Carter's the bigger dolt in this case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679049</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678019</id>
	<title>Google = Microsoft + Better PR</title>
	<author>sohmc</author>
	<datestamp>1247505780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I friend of mine pointed out that Google is just like microsoft in terms of reach and brand awareness, but with a much better PR team.

Google has made strides in announcing their stances on various tech-related policies (privacy, net neutrallity, etc.) and that's why people love them.  Most, if not all, of their consumer products were made because they saw the frustration with current solutions.  They not only improve upon them, but then offer it for free (ad supported, of course).

Google's ads are very unintrusive.  And more often than not, point you in the right direction.

I don't see Google and MS destroying each other.

I see Google BUYING MS before this happens.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I friend of mine pointed out that Google is just like microsoft in terms of reach and brand awareness , but with a much better PR team .
Google has made strides in announcing their stances on various tech-related policies ( privacy , net neutrallity , etc .
) and that 's why people love them .
Most , if not all , of their consumer products were made because they saw the frustration with current solutions .
They not only improve upon them , but then offer it for free ( ad supported , of course ) .
Google 's ads are very unintrusive .
And more often than not , point you in the right direction .
I do n't see Google and MS destroying each other .
I see Google BUYING MS before this happens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I friend of mine pointed out that Google is just like microsoft in terms of reach and brand awareness, but with a much better PR team.
Google has made strides in announcing their stances on various tech-related policies (privacy, net neutrallity, etc.
) and that's why people love them.
Most, if not all, of their consumer products were made because they saw the frustration with current solutions.
They not only improve upon them, but then offer it for free (ad supported, of course).
Google's ads are very unintrusive.
And more often than not, point you in the right direction.
I don't see Google and MS destroying each other.
I see Google BUYING MS before this happens.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677919</id>
	<title>And Bing...?</title>
	<author>openfrog</author>
	<datestamp>1247505480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are not Ballmer intentions to destroy Google notorious ("I will fucking kill them")?</p><p>Why should launching a Web OS for netbooks be considered a declaration of war, while launching a search engine (Bing) be considered business as usual? </p><p>As another poster wrote, this is called competition and let the better OS win.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are not Ballmer intentions to destroy Google notorious ( " I will fucking kill them " ) ? Why should launching a Web OS for netbooks be considered a declaration of war , while launching a search engine ( Bing ) be considered business as usual ?
As another poster wrote , this is called competition and let the better OS win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are not Ballmer intentions to destroy Google notorious ("I will fucking kill them")?Why should launching a Web OS for netbooks be considered a declaration of war, while launching a search engine (Bing) be considered business as usual?
As another poster wrote, this is called competition and let the better OS win.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678089</id>
	<title>Robert X. +1, Seditious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247505960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FRINGELY:  You are a Microsoft Troll</p><p>Yours In Communism,<br>Kilgore Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FRINGELY : You are a Microsoft TrollYours In Communism,Kilgore Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FRINGELY:  You are a Microsoft TrollYours In Communism,Kilgore Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680637</id>
	<title>Re:CRINGELY is an Idiot</title>
	<author>gbarules2999</author>
	<datestamp>1247514480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They would certainly benefit from a new OS rising up. Firefox, for example, was funded by Google so that they could get into the search box by default. Google knows how to get their hands into what they can find, but Windows is one place where their hands simply don't fit. Any place they could place their flag and claim ground has already been grabbed by Microsoft. If Google boosts Linux up, you can bet they'd have an interest in benefiting from filling the rather minute cracks that desktop Linux has.<br> <br>For example, saying, "Okay, we'll fix Pulseaudio for you guys by next Ubuntu release, if you do this or that." It would be a question of whether the Linux gang would accept them or not, depending on the offer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They would certainly benefit from a new OS rising up .
Firefox , for example , was funded by Google so that they could get into the search box by default .
Google knows how to get their hands into what they can find , but Windows is one place where their hands simply do n't fit .
Any place they could place their flag and claim ground has already been grabbed by Microsoft .
If Google boosts Linux up , you can bet they 'd have an interest in benefiting from filling the rather minute cracks that desktop Linux has .
For example , saying , " Okay , we 'll fix Pulseaudio for you guys by next Ubuntu release , if you do this or that .
" It would be a question of whether the Linux gang would accept them or not , depending on the offer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They would certainly benefit from a new OS rising up.
Firefox, for example, was funded by Google so that they could get into the search box by default.
Google knows how to get their hands into what they can find, but Windows is one place where their hands simply don't fit.
Any place they could place their flag and claim ground has already been grabbed by Microsoft.
If Google boosts Linux up, you can bet they'd have an interest in benefiting from filling the rather minute cracks that desktop Linux has.
For example, saying, "Okay, we'll fix Pulseaudio for you guys by next Ubuntu release, if you do this or that.
" It would be a question of whether the Linux gang would accept them or not, depending on the offer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680479</id>
	<title>Re:How riduculous</title>
	<author>gbarules2999</author>
	<datestamp>1247513880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google ads don't appear in my browser when I'm running Ubuntu?</p></div><p>That example is especially ironic considering Firefox comes with Google as the default search engine. The article is a piece of crap.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google ads do n't appear in my browser when I 'm running Ubuntu ? That example is especially ironic considering Firefox comes with Google as the default search engine .
The article is a piece of crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google ads don't appear in my browser when I'm running Ubuntu?That example is especially ironic considering Firefox comes with Google as the default search engine.
The article is a piece of crap.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677975</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678343</id>
	<title>Let the best OS win = Linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247506800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google "will fucking kill them"! Balmer must be going through a lot of thrown chairs right now<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google " will fucking kill them " !
Balmer must be going through a lot of thrown chairs right now : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google "will fucking kill them"!
Balmer must be going through a lot of thrown chairs right now :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678957</id>
	<title>Re:Hey anyone remember the Network Computer?</title>
	<author>pavera</author>
	<datestamp>1247508840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Difference between then and now is anyone who cares about computing and uses computers on a regular basis has high speed internet, so using the internet as a storage device is much more practical and usable than it was even 5 years ago.  5 years ago the best internet I could get at my house was 512kbps down and 128kbps up, I now have 10mbps down and 5mbps up and if I wanted to pay another $30/mo I could get 30mbps both ways...</p><p>This makes all the difference, being able to download a 10MB file in 10 seconds is usable, vs 5 years ago that same file took 2 minutes.  Granted high speed internet in the US isn't anywhere near ubiquitous, but it is much better and much faster than it was 5 years ago in most metropolitan areas.</p><p>The time of the "Network Computer" is coming, and faster than I think most people think.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Difference between then and now is anyone who cares about computing and uses computers on a regular basis has high speed internet , so using the internet as a storage device is much more practical and usable than it was even 5 years ago .
5 years ago the best internet I could get at my house was 512kbps down and 128kbps up , I now have 10mbps down and 5mbps up and if I wanted to pay another $ 30/mo I could get 30mbps both ways...This makes all the difference , being able to download a 10MB file in 10 seconds is usable , vs 5 years ago that same file took 2 minutes .
Granted high speed internet in the US is n't anywhere near ubiquitous , but it is much better and much faster than it was 5 years ago in most metropolitan areas.The time of the " Network Computer " is coming , and faster than I think most people think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Difference between then and now is anyone who cares about computing and uses computers on a regular basis has high speed internet, so using the internet as a storage device is much more practical and usable than it was even 5 years ago.
5 years ago the best internet I could get at my house was 512kbps down and 128kbps up, I now have 10mbps down and 5mbps up and if I wanted to pay another $30/mo I could get 30mbps both ways...This makes all the difference, being able to download a 10MB file in 10 seconds is usable, vs 5 years ago that same file took 2 minutes.
Granted high speed internet in the US isn't anywhere near ubiquitous, but it is much better and much faster than it was 5 years ago in most metropolitan areas.The time of the "Network Computer" is coming, and faster than I think most people think.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28690575</id>
	<title>Re:Makes more sense than Cringely lets on</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247584260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that Google is an ADVERTISING company. Chrome and Android don't really makes sense.</p><p>For Google to be successful, they MUST support the most popular platforms. For desktop this mean Windows and IE and for mobile this means iPhone. They can't not.</p><p>There is no way Google is going to displace any of these platforms anytime soon if ever. And there is little to gain by trying to do so. Just as no one is going to switch from Windows to Chrome OS, no one is going to switch from Google Search to Bing or Yahoo.</p><p>There is not enough information to accurately analyse their strategy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that Google is an ADVERTISING company .
Chrome and Android do n't really makes sense.For Google to be successful , they MUST support the most popular platforms .
For desktop this mean Windows and IE and for mobile this means iPhone .
They ca n't not.There is no way Google is going to displace any of these platforms anytime soon if ever .
And there is little to gain by trying to do so .
Just as no one is going to switch from Windows to Chrome OS , no one is going to switch from Google Search to Bing or Yahoo.There is not enough information to accurately analyse their strategy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that Google is an ADVERTISING company.
Chrome and Android don't really makes sense.For Google to be successful, they MUST support the most popular platforms.
For desktop this mean Windows and IE and for mobile this means iPhone.
They can't not.There is no way Google is going to displace any of these platforms anytime soon if ever.
And there is little to gain by trying to do so.
Just as no one is going to switch from Windows to Chrome OS, no one is going to switch from Google Search to Bing or Yahoo.There is not enough information to accurately analyse their strategy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678653</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677815</id>
	<title>So competition is bad?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247505180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nothing good will come of it? When has competition ever been a bad thing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing good will come of it ?
When has competition ever been a bad thing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing good will come of it?
When has competition ever been a bad thing?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678367</id>
	<title>Re:M.A.D.</title>
	<author>xdor</author>
	<datestamp>1247506920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Only if you're running Windows</htmltext>
<tokenext>Only if you 're running Windows</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only if you're running Windows</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28686931</id>
	<title>Re:That's just crazy talk.</title>
	<author>MattskEE</author>
	<datestamp>1247509620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If it wasn't for Google Chrome and Firefox, we would still be using IE6.</p></div></blockquote><p>I think you mean "If it wasn't for Firefox, we would still be using IE6."  Opera also deserves a little credit, but it was really Firefox that forced MS to finally push out a new version of IE.  Chrome is a fine browser, and it might keep MS on its toes now, but it is a pretty recent addition to the browser wars.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it was n't for Google Chrome and Firefox , we would still be using IE6.I think you mean " If it was n't for Firefox , we would still be using IE6 .
" Opera also deserves a little credit , but it was really Firefox that forced MS to finally push out a new version of IE .
Chrome is a fine browser , and it might keep MS on its toes now , but it is a pretty recent addition to the browser wars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it wasn't for Google Chrome and Firefox, we would still be using IE6.I think you mean "If it wasn't for Firefox, we would still be using IE6.
"  Opera also deserves a little credit, but it was really Firefox that forced MS to finally push out a new version of IE.
Chrome is a fine browser, and it might keep MS on its toes now, but it is a pretty recent addition to the browser wars.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677735</id>
	<title>First Nuclear Weapon Equipped Post</title>
	<author>billstewart</author>
	<datestamp>1247504940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kaboom!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kaboom !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kaboom!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678817</id>
	<title>Re:Is cringley a microsoft shill ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247508360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's an equal opportunity troll.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's an equal opportunity troll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's an equal opportunity troll.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677881</id>
	<title>Hang on ...</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1247505360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"a form of mutually assured destruction intended to keep each company in check"</p><p>And that's bad?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p>Seriously though, the competition between the two is only good if it also increases choice in the sectors where each company is *already dominant*.  If MS and Google both have healthy search solutions that we can choose between, that's good.  If MS and Google both have healthy OS solutions we can choose from, that's good too.  If the two of them merely retain their traditional dominant position whilst rattling sabres and reminding each other they could make a *real* push into one another's core market, that's not really good for anyone other than them.  Even if one of those companies maintains their traditional dominant area whilst also creating competition in the others' core competency that has dubious benefits for the market, since it'll imply one big player getting *even bigger*.</p><p>One thing that history has shown us and that recent years have shown us again: the status quo will not continue forever.  MS are not going to control the OS market *forever* as they have done in the past, ditto for Google in search provision.  What's now up for play is how soon these changes happen and whether they empower consumers or take power away from them.  Should be fun to watch!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" a form of mutually assured destruction intended to keep each company in check " And that 's bad ?
; - ) Seriously though , the competition between the two is only good if it also increases choice in the sectors where each company is * already dominant * .
If MS and Google both have healthy search solutions that we can choose between , that 's good .
If MS and Google both have healthy OS solutions we can choose from , that 's good too .
If the two of them merely retain their traditional dominant position whilst rattling sabres and reminding each other they could make a * real * push into one another 's core market , that 's not really good for anyone other than them .
Even if one of those companies maintains their traditional dominant area whilst also creating competition in the others ' core competency that has dubious benefits for the market , since it 'll imply one big player getting * even bigger * .One thing that history has shown us and that recent years have shown us again : the status quo will not continue forever .
MS are not going to control the OS market * forever * as they have done in the past , ditto for Google in search provision .
What 's now up for play is how soon these changes happen and whether they empower consumers or take power away from them .
Should be fun to watch !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"a form of mutually assured destruction intended to keep each company in check"And that's bad?
;-)Seriously though, the competition between the two is only good if it also increases choice in the sectors where each company is *already dominant*.
If MS and Google both have healthy search solutions that we can choose between, that's good.
If MS and Google both have healthy OS solutions we can choose from, that's good too.
If the two of them merely retain their traditional dominant position whilst rattling sabres and reminding each other they could make a *real* push into one another's core market, that's not really good for anyone other than them.
Even if one of those companies maintains their traditional dominant area whilst also creating competition in the others' core competency that has dubious benefits for the market, since it'll imply one big player getting *even bigger*.One thing that history has shown us and that recent years have shown us again: the status quo will not continue forever.
MS are not going to control the OS market *forever* as they have done in the past, ditto for Google in search provision.
What's now up for play is how soon these changes happen and whether they empower consumers or take power away from them.
Should be fun to watch!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678631</id>
	<title>Re:Is cringley a microsoft shill ?</title>
	<author>teknopurge</author>
	<datestamp>1247507820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>honestly, i dont know whether if he is. he surely sounds like one.</p></div><p>he's as much an MS shill as you are based on your post.  Christ, you fanbois are out in force today.....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>honestly , i dont know whether if he is .
he surely sounds like one.he 's as much an MS shill as you are based on your post .
Christ , you fanbois are out in force today.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>honestly, i dont know whether if he is.
he surely sounds like one.he's as much an MS shill as you are based on your post.
Christ, you fanbois are out in force today.....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679283</id>
	<title>Re:Cringe-worthy analysis</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247509980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What Microsoft has to fear more than anything else is that their employees will wake up one day DEAD: something happened over night and what was living yesterday isn't today. It would have to be an act of deliberate sabotage on Google's part and blatantly illegal, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen. Google would claim ignorance and try to hide the trail to the hit men, but Microsoft would have lost billions.</p><p>I believe in Internet language the proper response to Cringley is, "Pointless speculation is pointless."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What Microsoft has to fear more than anything else is that their employees will wake up one day DEAD : something happened over night and what was living yesterday is n't today .
It would have to be an act of deliberate sabotage on Google 's part and blatantly illegal , but that does n't mean it could n't happen .
Google would claim ignorance and try to hide the trail to the hit men , but Microsoft would have lost billions.I believe in Internet language the proper response to Cringley is , " Pointless speculation is pointless .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What Microsoft has to fear more than anything else is that their employees will wake up one day DEAD: something happened over night and what was living yesterday isn't today.
It would have to be an act of deliberate sabotage on Google's part and blatantly illegal, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen.
Google would claim ignorance and try to hide the trail to the hit men, but Microsoft would have lost billions.I believe in Internet language the proper response to Cringley is, "Pointless speculation is pointless.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678269</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680059</id>
	<title>Re:How riduculous</title>
	<author>crazybilly</author>
	<datestamp>1247512320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed.  That (nonsensical) line pretty much ruined the article for me.
<p>
Explain to me again how competing for OS and browser share is against Google's interests...because the fact that people use them to look at the internet seems like a pretty poor reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
That ( nonsensical ) line pretty much ruined the article for me .
Explain to me again how competing for OS and browser share is against Google 's interests...because the fact that people use them to look at the internet seems like a pretty poor reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
That (nonsensical) line pretty much ruined the article for me.
Explain to me again how competing for OS and browser share is against Google's interests...because the fact that people use them to look at the internet seems like a pretty poor reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677975</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28684469</id>
	<title>Re:Modes of Destruction</title>
	<author>LordLimecat</author>
	<datestamp>1247489280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Im just not sure thats true, google seems to be pretty good at adapting.  Planting ads in youtube vids in non-obnoxious ways, inline ads when the sidebar ads are blocked, there are many routes they could take.  Also, who really fires up adblocking just for google?  Are their ads REALLY that obnoxious?  I dont think its a pressing need for most consumers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Im just not sure thats true , google seems to be pretty good at adapting .
Planting ads in youtube vids in non-obnoxious ways , inline ads when the sidebar ads are blocked , there are many routes they could take .
Also , who really fires up adblocking just for google ?
Are their ads REALLY that obnoxious ?
I dont think its a pressing need for most consumers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Im just not sure thats true, google seems to be pretty good at adapting.
Planting ads in youtube vids in non-obnoxious ways, inline ads when the sidebar ads are blocked, there are many routes they could take.
Also, who really fires up adblocking just for google?
Are their ads REALLY that obnoxious?
I dont think its a pressing need for most consumers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679119</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677849</id>
	<title>Right....</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1247505240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> or, indeed, for consumers. It's just noise -- a form of mutually assured destruction intended to keep each company in check</p> </div><p>

How is it MAD? MS, try as it might, simply can't make a search engine that is going to be used more than Google's. Google will still lose out to Windows on a few things even with Chrome OS, for one being the large amount of specialty applications out there for Windows.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>or , indeed , for consumers .
It 's just noise -- a form of mutually assured destruction intended to keep each company in check How is it MAD ?
MS , try as it might , simply ca n't make a search engine that is going to be used more than Google 's .
Google will still lose out to Windows on a few things even with Chrome OS , for one being the large amount of specialty applications out there for Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> or, indeed, for consumers.
It's just noise -- a form of mutually assured destruction intended to keep each company in check 

How is it MAD?
MS, try as it might, simply can't make a search engine that is going to be used more than Google's.
Google will still lose out to Windows on a few things even with Chrome OS, for one being the large amount of specialty applications out there for Windows.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28685475</id>
	<title>Re:M.A.D.</title>
	<author>bursch-X</author>
	<datestamp>1247498100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Doesn't do anything on my Mac, though<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-P</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't do anything on my Mac , though ; -P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't do anything on my Mac, though ;-P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28687771</id>
	<title>Re:And Bing...?</title>
	<author>ignavus</author>
	<datestamp>1247563260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft does not compete. Microsoft kills, destroys, eliminates, obliterates. It does not compete.</p><p>Google is simply aware that to exist it must fight.</p><p>As long as MS owns the desktop, it will try to leverage that to funnel users into Microsoft products and services and away from its competitors.</p><p>Of course, Google tries to do the same thing, as does Apple. Which is why I avoid proprietary OSs - they think they own <em>you</em>.</p><p>FOSS is a gift. Proprietary software is a baited hook.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft does not compete .
Microsoft kills , destroys , eliminates , obliterates .
It does not compete.Google is simply aware that to exist it must fight.As long as MS owns the desktop , it will try to leverage that to funnel users into Microsoft products and services and away from its competitors.Of course , Google tries to do the same thing , as does Apple .
Which is why I avoid proprietary OSs - they think they own you.FOSS is a gift .
Proprietary software is a baited hook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft does not compete.
Microsoft kills, destroys, eliminates, obliterates.
It does not compete.Google is simply aware that to exist it must fight.As long as MS owns the desktop, it will try to leverage that to funnel users into Microsoft products and services and away from its competitors.Of course, Google tries to do the same thing, as does Apple.
Which is why I avoid proprietary OSs - they think they own you.FOSS is a gift.
Proprietary software is a baited hook.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677919</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678057</id>
	<title>Chrome OS and Bing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247505840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mutually assured distraction?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mutually assured distraction ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mutually assured distraction?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680303</id>
	<title>Re:That's just crazy talk.</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1247513160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And, I guarantee you, that if there were no Linux free IDEs, there would be no Visual Studio Express. I doubly guarantee you, that, if there was no gcc, there would be no standards compliant C++ in Visual Studio.</p></div></blockquote><p>That depends on how you define standard exactly.  If there is only one, isn't that sort of the standard?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And , I guarantee you , that if there were no Linux free IDEs , there would be no Visual Studio Express .
I doubly guarantee you , that , if there was no gcc , there would be no standards compliant C + + in Visual Studio.That depends on how you define standard exactly .
If there is only one , is n't that sort of the standard ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And, I guarantee you, that if there were no Linux free IDEs, there would be no Visual Studio Express.
I doubly guarantee you, that, if there was no gcc, there would be no standards compliant C++ in Visual Studio.That depends on how you define standard exactly.
If there is only one, isn't that sort of the standard?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28682787</id>
	<title>The M in MAD stands for "mutual"</title>
	<author>levicivita</author>
	<datestamp>1247480280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think that presently Microsoft is more of a risk to Google than Google is to Microsoft.  Why?  Bing.com has <a href="http://www.techtree.com/India/News/Bing\_Snacks\_on\_Googles\_Share/551-104245-643.html" title="techtree.com" rel="nofollow">real market share</a> [techtree.com], and they've done <a href="http://www.istartedsomething.com/20090607/bing-vs-google-vs-yahoo-blind-search-engine-test/" title="istartedsomething.com" rel="nofollow">a good job</a> [istartedsomething.com] of copying most of their algorithms and techniques.  Google is nowhere near being the same competitive threat.  Chrome (my favorite browser) is a meager 1\% market share.  Switching browsers is dramatically easier than switching operating systems, and they have not been able to drive users to them even then.  Switching search engines is trivial, and as such more liable to fads and more easily influenced.  Not to mention that MSFT's earnings are roughly 4 times those of Google, even despite the Vista debacle.  MSFT - one of the worst companies in the history of man kind - has massive staying power, and enjoys a heavily entrenched position.  The risk that Google is the next has-been is much greater than the same thing happening to MSFT, IMHO.  Which is why I am doing my part, diligently sabotaging every MSFT product I encounter, purging them from my life and the life of my friends and family.  But I have no illusions and I am still afraid, very afraid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that presently Microsoft is more of a risk to Google than Google is to Microsoft .
Why ? Bing.com has real market share [ techtree.com ] , and they 've done a good job [ istartedsomething.com ] of copying most of their algorithms and techniques .
Google is nowhere near being the same competitive threat .
Chrome ( my favorite browser ) is a meager 1 \ % market share .
Switching browsers is dramatically easier than switching operating systems , and they have not been able to drive users to them even then .
Switching search engines is trivial , and as such more liable to fads and more easily influenced .
Not to mention that MSFT 's earnings are roughly 4 times those of Google , even despite the Vista debacle .
MSFT - one of the worst companies in the history of man kind - has massive staying power , and enjoys a heavily entrenched position .
The risk that Google is the next has-been is much greater than the same thing happening to MSFT , IMHO .
Which is why I am doing my part , diligently sabotaging every MSFT product I encounter , purging them from my life and the life of my friends and family .
But I have no illusions and I am still afraid , very afraid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that presently Microsoft is more of a risk to Google than Google is to Microsoft.
Why?  Bing.com has real market share [techtree.com], and they've done a good job [istartedsomething.com] of copying most of their algorithms and techniques.
Google is nowhere near being the same competitive threat.
Chrome (my favorite browser) is a meager 1\% market share.
Switching browsers is dramatically easier than switching operating systems, and they have not been able to drive users to them even then.
Switching search engines is trivial, and as such more liable to fads and more easily influenced.
Not to mention that MSFT's earnings are roughly 4 times those of Google, even despite the Vista debacle.
MSFT - one of the worst companies in the history of man kind - has massive staying power, and enjoys a heavily entrenched position.
The risk that Google is the next has-been is much greater than the same thing happening to MSFT, IMHO.
Which is why I am doing my part, diligently sabotaging every MSFT product I encounter, purging them from my life and the life of my friends and family.
But I have no illusions and I am still afraid, very afraid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679463</id>
	<title>Re:Dear Mr Cringley</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1247510520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's an **AA provider? The parents who "provided" the people for those Associations of America? ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's an * * AA provider ?
The parents who " provided " the people for those Associations of America ?
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's an **AA provider?
The parents who "provided" the people for those Associations of America?
^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680395</id>
	<title>Microsoft's core business predates the Web</title>
	<author>Fantastic Lad</author>
	<datestamp>1247513460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We all know that little gem of wisdom. . , <b>"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."</b></p><p>Well, I think of Microsoft as having accepted the truth of that statement and simply concentrates on making sure the one big variable, "Some" remains as large a piece of the pie as they can get.  They also take the term, "Fool" and sort of merge it into the term, "Strong-arm".  (Getting Asus to sell EEE's loaded with WinXP for less than Linux was pretty astounding.)</p><p>But I do see that changing.</p><p>It has been hard for people to adopt alternative OS's because they've been written by geeks for geeks.  It's like trying to sell D&amp;D to a boring office drone/exec.  Won't happen.  It's too fringe and too hard to grasp, and who the heck wants to emulate the office geek?</p><p>Google, however, will not call it Linux and they won't make it seem geeky.  They'll give it the same sort of approachable air as a Pixar film.  The market surveys have been done, I have zero doubt.  Geeks and Office drone/execs will feel comfortable and unthreatened by it.  It will come with Google's stamp of authority and past success, so everybody will feel confident in giving it a shot.  And "Free" is hard to ignore, especially when you don't have the intellectually threatening IT geek just waiting for you to screw up.  Google is friendly.  Just look at those soothing colors.</p><p>And mutually assured destruction?  Not going to happen.  Microsoft is clinging to a worldview which is sliding away from them; the internet is more and more defining the user experience, and Windows sucks at it.  They've consistently not gotten it.  Remember; the roots of their business is still stuck in an age where <i>there was no internet.</i>  --Bill was providing software to isolated machines so that people could give the fancy office printer something to do, and run the odd game now and again.  The whole connectivity thing was a secondary bit of catch up, and given the fact that even after a decade and a half of development, my laptop and my tower still have trouble talking to each other when using Windows software. . ,  well that just goes to show how great a job the boys have done over at Redmond in working outside their domain.  But their core business model is pretty good.  I can run third party software on my Windows machine and I can manage my files with little trouble.  They've gotten that down to the point where I don't even see it and barring thunder storms, it's completely reliable.  And that's great.  But this Internet thing. . ?  Microsoft has made a bloody mess of it.</p><p>Google, on the other hand, is a child of the Internet.  If they can get their OS to run lots of useful software as well as do the internet thing really efficiently. . .  Well, sign me up.</p><p>I suspect that MS will be able to strong-arm their way into continued market relevance for a while yet, but if they find themselves fighting to sell something which you can get for free, then they really have nowhere to run.  --And remember, this isn't like Windows v.s. Linux, where geeks are usually running a silent meta program in the backs of their minds whereby they deliberately/unconsciously try to make it hard for normal people to be like them.  And it isn't Ubuntu, which despite Mark Shuttleworth's noble efforts, started with an immature product which STILL can't run a frickin' graphics tablet properly.  This is Google.  Google is the happy Lego Borg with WAY more money than Ubuntu, hires on the best of the best, and they're out to assimilate you.  That's what they do.  Google's up-front goal is to consume EVERYTHING.  We just don't happen to mind, probably because they also have learned how to share.  Sharing is what gives them all their power, and it's why they will exist long after Microsoft is another forgotten blip.  A railway tycoon or that matchstick king guy.</p><p>Just my opinion</p><p>-FL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We all know that little gem of wisdom .
. , " You can fool some of the people all of the time , and all of the people some of the time , but you ca n't fool all of the people all of the time .
" Well , I think of Microsoft as having accepted the truth of that statement and simply concentrates on making sure the one big variable , " Some " remains as large a piece of the pie as they can get .
They also take the term , " Fool " and sort of merge it into the term , " Strong-arm " .
( Getting Asus to sell EEE 's loaded with WinXP for less than Linux was pretty astounding .
) But I do see that changing.It has been hard for people to adopt alternative OS 's because they 've been written by geeks for geeks .
It 's like trying to sell D&amp;D to a boring office drone/exec .
Wo n't happen .
It 's too fringe and too hard to grasp , and who the heck wants to emulate the office geek ? Google , however , will not call it Linux and they wo n't make it seem geeky .
They 'll give it the same sort of approachable air as a Pixar film .
The market surveys have been done , I have zero doubt .
Geeks and Office drone/execs will feel comfortable and unthreatened by it .
It will come with Google 's stamp of authority and past success , so everybody will feel confident in giving it a shot .
And " Free " is hard to ignore , especially when you do n't have the intellectually threatening IT geek just waiting for you to screw up .
Google is friendly .
Just look at those soothing colors.And mutually assured destruction ?
Not going to happen .
Microsoft is clinging to a worldview which is sliding away from them ; the internet is more and more defining the user experience , and Windows sucks at it .
They 've consistently not gotten it .
Remember ; the roots of their business is still stuck in an age where there was no internet .
--Bill was providing software to isolated machines so that people could give the fancy office printer something to do , and run the odd game now and again .
The whole connectivity thing was a secondary bit of catch up , and given the fact that even after a decade and a half of development , my laptop and my tower still have trouble talking to each other when using Windows software .
. , well that just goes to show how great a job the boys have done over at Redmond in working outside their domain .
But their core business model is pretty good .
I can run third party software on my Windows machine and I can manage my files with little trouble .
They 've gotten that down to the point where I do n't even see it and barring thunder storms , it 's completely reliable .
And that 's great .
But this Internet thing .
. ?
Microsoft has made a bloody mess of it.Google , on the other hand , is a child of the Internet .
If they can get their OS to run lots of useful software as well as do the internet thing really efficiently .
. .
Well , sign me up.I suspect that MS will be able to strong-arm their way into continued market relevance for a while yet , but if they find themselves fighting to sell something which you can get for free , then they really have nowhere to run .
--And remember , this is n't like Windows v.s .
Linux , where geeks are usually running a silent meta program in the backs of their minds whereby they deliberately/unconsciously try to make it hard for normal people to be like them .
And it is n't Ubuntu , which despite Mark Shuttleworth 's noble efforts , started with an immature product which STILL ca n't run a frickin ' graphics tablet properly .
This is Google .
Google is the happy Lego Borg with WAY more money than Ubuntu , hires on the best of the best , and they 're out to assimilate you .
That 's what they do .
Google 's up-front goal is to consume EVERYTHING .
We just do n't happen to mind , probably because they also have learned how to share .
Sharing is what gives them all their power , and it 's why they will exist long after Microsoft is another forgotten blip .
A railway tycoon or that matchstick king guy.Just my opinion-FL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We all know that little gem of wisdom.
. , "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
"Well, I think of Microsoft as having accepted the truth of that statement and simply concentrates on making sure the one big variable, "Some" remains as large a piece of the pie as they can get.
They also take the term, "Fool" and sort of merge it into the term, "Strong-arm".
(Getting Asus to sell EEE's loaded with WinXP for less than Linux was pretty astounding.
)But I do see that changing.It has been hard for people to adopt alternative OS's because they've been written by geeks for geeks.
It's like trying to sell D&amp;D to a boring office drone/exec.
Won't happen.
It's too fringe and too hard to grasp, and who the heck wants to emulate the office geek?Google, however, will not call it Linux and they won't make it seem geeky.
They'll give it the same sort of approachable air as a Pixar film.
The market surveys have been done, I have zero doubt.
Geeks and Office drone/execs will feel comfortable and unthreatened by it.
It will come with Google's stamp of authority and past success, so everybody will feel confident in giving it a shot.
And "Free" is hard to ignore, especially when you don't have the intellectually threatening IT geek just waiting for you to screw up.
Google is friendly.
Just look at those soothing colors.And mutually assured destruction?
Not going to happen.
Microsoft is clinging to a worldview which is sliding away from them; the internet is more and more defining the user experience, and Windows sucks at it.
They've consistently not gotten it.
Remember; the roots of their business is still stuck in an age where there was no internet.
--Bill was providing software to isolated machines so that people could give the fancy office printer something to do, and run the odd game now and again.
The whole connectivity thing was a secondary bit of catch up, and given the fact that even after a decade and a half of development, my laptop and my tower still have trouble talking to each other when using Windows software.
. ,  well that just goes to show how great a job the boys have done over at Redmond in working outside their domain.
But their core business model is pretty good.
I can run third party software on my Windows machine and I can manage my files with little trouble.
They've gotten that down to the point where I don't even see it and barring thunder storms, it's completely reliable.
And that's great.
But this Internet thing.
. ?
Microsoft has made a bloody mess of it.Google, on the other hand, is a child of the Internet.
If they can get their OS to run lots of useful software as well as do the internet thing really efficiently.
. .
Well, sign me up.I suspect that MS will be able to strong-arm their way into continued market relevance for a while yet, but if they find themselves fighting to sell something which you can get for free, then they really have nowhere to run.
--And remember, this isn't like Windows v.s.
Linux, where geeks are usually running a silent meta program in the backs of their minds whereby they deliberately/unconsciously try to make it hard for normal people to be like them.
And it isn't Ubuntu, which despite Mark Shuttleworth's noble efforts, started with an immature product which STILL can't run a frickin' graphics tablet properly.
This is Google.
Google is the happy Lego Borg with WAY more money than Ubuntu, hires on the best of the best, and they're out to assimilate you.
That's what they do.
Google's up-front goal is to consume EVERYTHING.
We just don't happen to mind, probably because they also have learned how to share.
Sharing is what gives them all their power, and it's why they will exist long after Microsoft is another forgotten blip.
A railway tycoon or that matchstick king guy.Just my opinion-FL</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679159</id>
	<title>Incorrect Assertions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247509500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TFA says that:</p><p>"<i>The vast majority of Google searches are, of course, done on PCs running Microsoft Windows and Internet Explorer. It is not in Google&#226;(TM)s real interest to displace these products, which have facilitated so much of its success.</i>"</p><p>This statement makes the implication that if Windows or IE did not exist, neither would Google. What a rediculous assertion. If Apple had 99\% market share, Google would be running primarily in Safari. The browser used for opening google.com does not make a bit of difference to Google. If Google were a locally compiled application which had not been ported to any other architecture, that might be true, but it's clearly not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA says that : " The vast majority of Google searches are , of course , done on PCs running Microsoft Windows and Internet Explorer .
It is not in Google   ( TM ) s real interest to displace these products , which have facilitated so much of its success .
" This statement makes the implication that if Windows or IE did not exist , neither would Google .
What a rediculous assertion .
If Apple had 99 \ % market share , Google would be running primarily in Safari .
The browser used for opening google.com does not make a bit of difference to Google .
If Google were a locally compiled application which had not been ported to any other architecture , that might be true , but it 's clearly not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA says that:"The vast majority of Google searches are, of course, done on PCs running Microsoft Windows and Internet Explorer.
It is not in Googleâ(TM)s real interest to displace these products, which have facilitated so much of its success.
"This statement makes the implication that if Windows or IE did not exist, neither would Google.
What a rediculous assertion.
If Apple had 99\% market share, Google would be running primarily in Safari.
The browser used for opening google.com does not make a bit of difference to Google.
If Google were a locally compiled application which had not been ported to any other architecture, that might be true, but it's clearly not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28684963</id>
	<title>Re:Hey anyone remember the Network Computer?</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1247492820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Difference between then and now is anyone who cares about computing and uses computers on a regular basis has high speed internet</i></p><p>Not even close.  I bet the only access many people have to faster internet access is satellite, which isn't as fast as cable or dsl.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Difference between then and now is anyone who cares about computing and uses computers on a regular basis has high speed internetNot even close .
I bet the only access many people have to faster internet access is satellite , which is n't as fast as cable or dsl .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Difference between then and now is anyone who cares about computing and uses computers on a regular basis has high speed internetNot even close.
I bet the only access many people have to faster internet access is satellite, which isn't as fast as cable or dsl.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678957</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678395</id>
	<title>Hey anyone remember the Network Computer?</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1247507040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network\_Computer" title="wikipedia.org">The Network Computer</a> [wikipedia.org] was developed by Oracle and partners to take out Microsoft and Microsoft Windows.</p><p>The Network Computer was a diskless workstation that used the Internet for storage was supposed to take out or at least compete with Microsoft. It ran things like JavaOS, etc. It eventually flopped.</p><p>Oracle eventually bought out Sun, one of the Network Computers partners.</p><p>The Chrome OS netbook is basically another Network Computer type scenario, designed to take out Microsoft or at least compete with it. Good luck, but remember that others who did the same thing before have failed. The web browser for the Network Computer was Netscape, the web browser for the Chrome OS is Google Chrome.</p><p>If it wasn't for the Mozilla foundation, Netscape code would no longer be used, because Netscape was open sourced as the Mozilla, Seamonkey, and Firefox web browsers, it still exists in some form but the original Netscape is gone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Network Computer [ wikipedia.org ] was developed by Oracle and partners to take out Microsoft and Microsoft Windows.The Network Computer was a diskless workstation that used the Internet for storage was supposed to take out or at least compete with Microsoft .
It ran things like JavaOS , etc .
It eventually flopped.Oracle eventually bought out Sun , one of the Network Computers partners.The Chrome OS netbook is basically another Network Computer type scenario , designed to take out Microsoft or at least compete with it .
Good luck , but remember that others who did the same thing before have failed .
The web browser for the Network Computer was Netscape , the web browser for the Chrome OS is Google Chrome.If it was n't for the Mozilla foundation , Netscape code would no longer be used , because Netscape was open sourced as the Mozilla , Seamonkey , and Firefox web browsers , it still exists in some form but the original Netscape is gone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Network Computer [wikipedia.org] was developed by Oracle and partners to take out Microsoft and Microsoft Windows.The Network Computer was a diskless workstation that used the Internet for storage was supposed to take out or at least compete with Microsoft.
It ran things like JavaOS, etc.
It eventually flopped.Oracle eventually bought out Sun, one of the Network Computers partners.The Chrome OS netbook is basically another Network Computer type scenario, designed to take out Microsoft or at least compete with it.
Good luck, but remember that others who did the same thing before have failed.
The web browser for the Network Computer was Netscape, the web browser for the Chrome OS is Google Chrome.If it wasn't for the Mozilla foundation, Netscape code would no longer be used, because Netscape was open sourced as the Mozilla, Seamonkey, and Firefox web browsers, it still exists in some form but the original Netscape is gone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28681349</id>
	<title>Re:Dear Mr Cringley</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247517600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, not here!  Microsoft initiated the Jihad form of business.  Competition isn't competition, its <b>A THREAT!</b> There is no competition, its war to the death.  There is no competition.  Microsoft took the idea of company as psychological psycopath to a whole new level.  The Chicago branch of La Casa Nostra has nothing on them.  Instead of having a mere Omerta (with the blood on the burning picture of Mary, mother of Jesus), no, they call them MCSEES and expect universal fealty.  Even if their skills are far below that of someone who say went to university and studied for 12 years getting a Doctoral degree on the topic, they will argue and treat with disdain those who are not in the fold.  Even if their skills aren't good enough to get them a job, they will defend to the point of shouts, screaming and gun-play.  Their marketing astro-turfers will spread lies and apologise for the company better than any Soviet Komrade.  The KGB has nothing on them.  Moral conscience has no place in their psycopathic logic.  Their entrance exam is the Jim Jones Kool-Aid test.  It isn't brand loyalty, its psychotic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , not here !
Microsoft initiated the Jihad form of business .
Competition is n't competition , its A THREAT !
There is no competition , its war to the death .
There is no competition .
Microsoft took the idea of company as psychological psycopath to a whole new level .
The Chicago branch of La Casa Nostra has nothing on them .
Instead of having a mere Omerta ( with the blood on the burning picture of Mary , mother of Jesus ) , no , they call them MCSEES and expect universal fealty .
Even if their skills are far below that of someone who say went to university and studied for 12 years getting a Doctoral degree on the topic , they will argue and treat with disdain those who are not in the fold .
Even if their skills are n't good enough to get them a job , they will defend to the point of shouts , screaming and gun-play .
Their marketing astro-turfers will spread lies and apologise for the company better than any Soviet Komrade .
The KGB has nothing on them .
Moral conscience has no place in their psycopathic logic .
Their entrance exam is the Jim Jones Kool-Aid test .
It is n't brand loyalty , its psychotic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, not here!
Microsoft initiated the Jihad form of business.
Competition isn't competition, its A THREAT!
There is no competition, its war to the death.
There is no competition.
Microsoft took the idea of company as psychological psycopath to a whole new level.
The Chicago branch of La Casa Nostra has nothing on them.
Instead of having a mere Omerta (with the blood on the burning picture of Mary, mother of Jesus), no, they call them MCSEES and expect universal fealty.
Even if their skills are far below that of someone who say went to university and studied for 12 years getting a Doctoral degree on the topic, they will argue and treat with disdain those who are not in the fold.
Even if their skills aren't good enough to get them a job, they will defend to the point of shouts, screaming and gun-play.
Their marketing astro-turfers will spread lies and apologise for the company better than any Soviet Komrade.
The KGB has nothing on them.
Moral conscience has no place in their psycopathic logic.
Their entrance exam is the Jim Jones Kool-Aid test.
It isn't brand loyalty, its psychotic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677739</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678153</id>
	<title>Price War!</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1247506140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hopefully, this results in MS making their OS either cheaper, or free and finding another way to make their money that doesn't suck. I expect them to sell space in a cloud OS like everyone else, by and by, since they too seem to share the hallucination of "always connected" internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hopefully , this results in MS making their OS either cheaper , or free and finding another way to make their money that does n't suck .
I expect them to sell space in a cloud OS like everyone else , by and by , since they too seem to share the hallucination of " always connected " internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hopefully, this results in MS making their OS either cheaper, or free and finding another way to make their money that doesn't suck.
I expect them to sell space in a cloud OS like everyone else, by and by, since they too seem to share the hallucination of "always connected" internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678015</id>
	<title>Re:More importantly...</title>
	<author>RiotingPacifist</author>
	<datestamp>1247505780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>nice X troll, but chrome OS is going to be a way to run an easy way to run google apps, rather than a linux desktop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>nice X troll , but chrome OS is going to be a way to run an easy way to run google apps , rather than a linux desktop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nice X troll, but chrome OS is going to be a way to run an easy way to run google apps, rather than a linux desktop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680267</id>
	<title>Re:isn't that a good thing?</title>
	<author>Dan Ost</author>
	<datestamp>1247513040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What evil do you see in Google's actions?</p><p>Seriously, what am I missing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What evil do you see in Google 's actions ? Seriously , what am I missing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What evil do you see in Google's actions?Seriously, what am I missing?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677981</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678177</id>
	<title>Updated OS wars gif?</title>
	<author>dvh.tosomja</author>
	<datestamp>1247506200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can somebody post updated OS wars image? The current one is from 2006</p><p><a href="http://mshiltonj.com/software\_wars/current/" title="mshiltonj.com" rel="nofollow">http://mshiltonj.com/software\_wars/current/</a> [mshiltonj.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can somebody post updated OS wars image ?
The current one is from 2006http : //mshiltonj.com/software \ _wars/current/ [ mshiltonj.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can somebody post updated OS wars image?
The current one is from 2006http://mshiltonj.com/software\_wars/current/ [mshiltonj.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679575</id>
	<title>Mr Cringley there is competition</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1247510820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The phenomenon you are witnessing is also known as competition in some circles. It has been known to exist in the world of business for a very very long time.</i></p><p>Exactly what I was thinking.  There isn't much competition but hopefully what there is of it will encourage innovations and improvements.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The phenomenon you are witnessing is also known as competition in some circles .
It has been known to exist in the world of business for a very very long time.Exactly what I was thinking .
There is n't much competition but hopefully what there is of it will encourage innovations and improvements .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The phenomenon you are witnessing is also known as competition in some circles.
It has been known to exist in the world of business for a very very long time.Exactly what I was thinking.
There isn't much competition but hopefully what there is of it will encourage innovations and improvements.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677739</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677981</id>
	<title>isn't that a good thing?</title>
	<author>macbeth66</author>
	<datestamp>1247505660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> a form of mutually assured destruction intended to keep each company in check</p> </div><p>But, isn't this what we want?  Micorsoft has twenty+ years of uncompetitive behavior and Google is showing an ever increasing disdain for their corporate motto.  Something about doing no evil.  HA!</p><p>So, maybe this is exactly what we need to keep the behemoths reined in.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>a form of mutually assured destruction intended to keep each company in check But , is n't this what we want ?
Micorsoft has twenty + years of uncompetitive behavior and Google is showing an ever increasing disdain for their corporate motto .
Something about doing no evil .
HA ! So , maybe this is exactly what we need to keep the behemoths reined in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> a form of mutually assured destruction intended to keep each company in check But, isn't this what we want?
Micorsoft has twenty+ years of uncompetitive behavior and Google is showing an ever increasing disdain for their corporate motto.
Something about doing no evil.
HA!So, maybe this is exactly what we need to keep the behemoths reined in.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28684437</id>
	<title>Re:Remember Windows on 90\% Desktop</title>
	<author>LordLimecat</author>
	<datestamp>1247489160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thats irrelevant--90\% of google runs on whatever OS is on 90\% of computers.  Thats where your analogy breaks up, not only does the "lemonade stand" have awfully deep pockets itself, but it isnt reliant on windows in any way-- it doesnt matter to google if windows goes down, google's market share wont budge.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thats irrelevant--90 \ % of google runs on whatever OS is on 90 \ % of computers .
Thats where your analogy breaks up , not only does the " lemonade stand " have awfully deep pockets itself , but it isnt reliant on windows in any way-- it doesnt matter to google if windows goes down , google 's market share wont budge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thats irrelevant--90\% of google runs on whatever OS is on 90\% of computers.
Thats where your analogy breaks up, not only does the "lemonade stand" have awfully deep pockets itself, but it isnt reliant on windows in any way-- it doesnt matter to google if windows goes down, google's market share wont budge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28684395</id>
	<title>Re:Modes of Destruction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247488860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"How would web content change?"</p><p>Instant internet recession? Ads that try to evolve past the adblocks?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" How would web content change ?
" Instant internet recession ?
Ads that try to evolve past the adblocks ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"How would web content change?
"Instant internet recession?
Ads that try to evolve past the adblocks?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679119</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677781</id>
	<title>Competition</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247505060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>How is competition between brands not good for the customer?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is competition between brands not good for the customer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is competition between brands not good for the customer?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677739</id>
	<title>Dear Mr Cringley</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247505000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The phenomenon you are witnessing is also known as competition in some circles. It has been known to exist in the world of business for a very very long time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The phenomenon you are witnessing is also known as competition in some circles .
It has been known to exist in the world of business for a very very long time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The phenomenon you are witnessing is also known as competition in some circles.
It has been known to exist in the world of business for a very very long time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679025</id>
	<title>Remember Windows on 90\% Desktop</title>
	<author>deanston</author>
	<datestamp>1247509020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>People need to be reminded of this over and over to put things in perspective. Lots people are putting Google on a par with MSFT now and that is just plain wrong. Right now 90\% of Google runs on top of Windows. It's like renting a lemonade stand inside a supermarket. I think most people misinterpret what Cringely is saying, or plain did not read the article. People are animals. Train them a certain way and they respond to your command. I've found Chrome unstable on Windows and Safari (both based on WebKit) much much slower on Windows than on a Mac. It would not take much for the Windows OS to somehow make using Google products so much harder and inconvenient, and people will switch back to using 90\% all MSFT software and think there is actually fair competition. Google has to keep at more than just Search to ensure it has a reliable platform and venue for its search business.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People need to be reminded of this over and over to put things in perspective .
Lots people are putting Google on a par with MSFT now and that is just plain wrong .
Right now 90 \ % of Google runs on top of Windows .
It 's like renting a lemonade stand inside a supermarket .
I think most people misinterpret what Cringely is saying , or plain did not read the article .
People are animals .
Train them a certain way and they respond to your command .
I 've found Chrome unstable on Windows and Safari ( both based on WebKit ) much much slower on Windows than on a Mac .
It would not take much for the Windows OS to somehow make using Google products so much harder and inconvenient , and people will switch back to using 90 \ % all MSFT software and think there is actually fair competition .
Google has to keep at more than just Search to ensure it has a reliable platform and venue for its search business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People need to be reminded of this over and over to put things in perspective.
Lots people are putting Google on a par with MSFT now and that is just plain wrong.
Right now 90\% of Google runs on top of Windows.
It's like renting a lemonade stand inside a supermarket.
I think most people misinterpret what Cringely is saying, or plain did not read the article.
People are animals.
Train them a certain way and they respond to your command.
I've found Chrome unstable on Windows and Safari (both based on WebKit) much much slower on Windows than on a Mac.
It would not take much for the Windows OS to somehow make using Google products so much harder and inconvenient, and people will switch back to using 90\% all MSFT software and think there is actually fair competition.
Google has to keep at more than just Search to ensure it has a reliable platform and venue for its search business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678621</id>
	<title>MS facilitated Google's success?!</title>
	<author>Sloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1247507760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The vast majority of Google searches are, of course, done on PCs running Microsoft Windows and Internet Explorer. It is not in Google&#226;(TM)s real interest to displace these products, which have facilitated so much of its success.</p></div></blockquote><p>WTF?!  You mean if those users were running a different OS and/or browser, they would not have ever had to search for things?</p><p>Total bullshit.</p><p>I don't have any idea whether or not Google can cut info MS's marketshare, but doing so sure ain't gonna hurt Google's ad revenue.  MS doesn't "facilitate" Google at all.</p><p>You could even argue that if it weren't for Microsoft, there would be more overall internet usage, since if you do happen to use Microsoft products, you've got to be pretty reckless to connect your box to the Internet.  It's a risky thing to do.  (Counterpoint: Nobody actually cares about the risks, and they do it anyway.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The vast majority of Google searches are , of course , done on PCs running Microsoft Windows and Internet Explorer .
It is not in Google   ( TM ) s real interest to displace these products , which have facilitated so much of its success.WTF ? !
You mean if those users were running a different OS and/or browser , they would not have ever had to search for things ? Total bullshit.I do n't have any idea whether or not Google can cut info MS 's marketshare , but doing so sure ai n't gon na hurt Google 's ad revenue .
MS does n't " facilitate " Google at all.You could even argue that if it were n't for Microsoft , there would be more overall internet usage , since if you do happen to use Microsoft products , you 've got to be pretty reckless to connect your box to the Internet .
It 's a risky thing to do .
( Counterpoint : Nobody actually cares about the risks , and they do it anyway .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The vast majority of Google searches are, of course, done on PCs running Microsoft Windows and Internet Explorer.
It is not in Googleâ(TM)s real interest to displace these products, which have facilitated so much of its success.WTF?!
You mean if those users were running a different OS and/or browser, they would not have ever had to search for things?Total bullshit.I don't have any idea whether or not Google can cut info MS's marketshare, but doing so sure ain't gonna hurt Google's ad revenue.
MS doesn't "facilitate" Google at all.You could even argue that if it weren't for Microsoft, there would be more overall internet usage, since if you do happen to use Microsoft products, you've got to be pretty reckless to connect your box to the Internet.
It's a risky thing to do.
(Counterpoint: Nobody actually cares about the risks, and they do it anyway.
)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680183</id>
	<title>Edison</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1247512740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Edison used to say that Tesla's newfangled alternating current was dangerous, unstable and just plain dirty electricity.</i></p><p>Edison was even cruel to an <a href="http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/01/dayintech\_0104" title="wired.com">elephant</a> [wired.com] to prove it.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Edison used to say that Tesla 's newfangled alternating current was dangerous , unstable and just plain dirty electricity.Edison was even cruel to an elephant [ wired.com ] to prove it .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Edison used to say that Tesla's newfangled alternating current was dangerous, unstable and just plain dirty electricity.Edison was even cruel to an elephant [wired.com] to prove it.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677769</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680499</id>
	<title>Re:Dear Mr Cringley</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1247513940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and don't forget "lobbying the government to give you subsidies and preferential treatment."  Apparently capitalism doesn't work without that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and do n't forget " lobbying the government to give you subsidies and preferential treatment .
" Apparently capitalism does n't work without that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and don't forget "lobbying the government to give you subsidies and preferential treatment.
"  Apparently capitalism doesn't work without that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28683055</id>
	<title>Re:And Bing...?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247481300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>To be fair, Bing is just a re-branding.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair , Bing is just a re-branding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair, Bing is just a re-branding.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677919</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680193</id>
	<title>Re:Cringe-worthy analysis</title>
	<author>CrashandDie</author>
	<datestamp>1247512800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This is like bad science fiction, written before the internet was invented - by Dan Brown. Cringely is such a tool.</p></div></blockquote><p>

It makes me cringe.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is like bad science fiction , written before the internet was invented - by Dan Brown .
Cringely is such a tool .
It makes me cringe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is like bad science fiction, written before the internet was invented - by Dan Brown.
Cringely is such a tool.
It makes me cringe.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678269</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680285</id>
	<title>Re:Cringe-worthy analysis</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247513040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and the most amusing thing would be that, even if this were to happen in some mirror universe...</p><p>people would be annoyed that "microsoft broke the internet" and instead of finding a different search enginge, they'd get a different OS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and the most amusing thing would be that , even if this were to happen in some mirror universe...people would be annoyed that " microsoft broke the internet " and instead of finding a different search enginge , they 'd get a different OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and the most amusing thing would be that, even if this were to happen in some mirror universe...people would be annoyed that "microsoft broke the internet" and instead of finding a different search enginge, they'd get a different OS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678269</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678565</id>
	<title>Re:Dear Mr Cringley</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247507640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Keeping each company in check is plenty beneficial to both customer and company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Keeping each company in check is plenty beneficial to both customer and company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keeping each company in check is plenty beneficial to both customer and company.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677739</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679201</id>
	<title>MAD?  Direct Attack?</title>
	<author>Ephemeriis</author>
	<datestamp>1247509620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This is all heady stuff and good for lots of press, but in the end none of this is likely to make a real difference for either company or, indeed, for consumers. It's just noise &#226;" a form of mutually assured destruction intended to keep each company in check.</p></div></blockquote><p>Mutually assured destruction?  I believe the term you're looking for is "competition."  It's that thing where multiple companies produce similar products and try to out-do each-other in an attempt to make people buy their products.</p><blockquote><div><p>The battle between Microsoft and Google entered a new phase last week with the announcement of Google's Chrome Operating System &#226;" a direct attack on Microsoft Windows.</p></div></blockquote><p>How, exactly, is a glorified thin-client an attack on Microsoft Windows?</p><p>Sure, a lot of stuff runs on the web these days...  And I've argued that the trend will only continue...  But this is like claiming that Wyse terminals are a direct attack on Dell's desktops.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is all heady stuff and good for lots of press , but in the end none of this is likely to make a real difference for either company or , indeed , for consumers .
It 's just noise   " a form of mutually assured destruction intended to keep each company in check.Mutually assured destruction ?
I believe the term you 're looking for is " competition .
" It 's that thing where multiple companies produce similar products and try to out-do each-other in an attempt to make people buy their products.The battle between Microsoft and Google entered a new phase last week with the announcement of Google 's Chrome Operating System   " a direct attack on Microsoft Windows.How , exactly , is a glorified thin-client an attack on Microsoft Windows ? Sure , a lot of stuff runs on the web these days... And I 've argued that the trend will only continue... But this is like claiming that Wyse terminals are a direct attack on Dell 's desktops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is all heady stuff and good for lots of press, but in the end none of this is likely to make a real difference for either company or, indeed, for consumers.
It's just noise â" a form of mutually assured destruction intended to keep each company in check.Mutually assured destruction?
I believe the term you're looking for is "competition.
"  It's that thing where multiple companies produce similar products and try to out-do each-other in an attempt to make people buy their products.The battle between Microsoft and Google entered a new phase last week with the announcement of Google's Chrome Operating System â" a direct attack on Microsoft Windows.How, exactly, is a glorified thin-client an attack on Microsoft Windows?Sure, a lot of stuff runs on the web these days...  And I've argued that the trend will only continue...  But this is like claiming that Wyse terminals are a direct attack on Dell's desktops.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680513</id>
	<title>No, Google will just Lose</title>
	<author>istartedi</author>
	<datestamp>1247514000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I unplug the ethernet cable on my
Windows machine, I can still get work done.
It makes no sense to make things dependant
on the network when they are inherently non-network
functions.  Or, as I've been saying for the past
10 years regarding this issue:</p><p>I can't use my word processor, the network is down.</p><p>If you don't understand what's wrong with that,
you either have no clue, or you're a shill for some business
that wants to force us into the SAAS model.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I unplug the ethernet cable on my Windows machine , I can still get work done .
It makes no sense to make things dependant on the network when they are inherently non-network functions .
Or , as I 've been saying for the past 10 years regarding this issue : I ca n't use my word processor , the network is down.If you do n't understand what 's wrong with that , you either have no clue , or you 're a shill for some business that wants to force us into the SAAS model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I unplug the ethernet cable on my
Windows machine, I can still get work done.
It makes no sense to make things dependant
on the network when they are inherently non-network
functions.
Or, as I've been saying for the past
10 years regarding this issue:I can't use my word processor, the network is down.If you don't understand what's wrong with that,
you either have no clue, or you're a shill for some business
that wants to force us into the SAAS model.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680239</id>
	<title>seriously now guys</title>
	<author>SteelRat</author>
	<datestamp>1247512920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I always suspected that Cringely was completely clueless, but now I have something to point to which by his own words damn him more than anything I could ever say.</p><p>This is the kind of writing that you can point at as an example of how some people do not get it despite their pomp and bigdealness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I always suspected that Cringely was completely clueless , but now I have something to point to which by his own words damn him more than anything I could ever say.This is the kind of writing that you can point at as an example of how some people do not get it despite their pomp and bigdealness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always suspected that Cringely was completely clueless, but now I have something to point to which by his own words damn him more than anything I could ever say.This is the kind of writing that you can point at as an example of how some people do not get it despite their pomp and bigdealness.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677835</id>
	<title>Cringley noise</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1247505240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The dude probably knows a thing or two about useless noise.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The dude probably knows a thing or two about useless noise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The dude probably knows a thing or two about useless noise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28684557</id>
	<title>Re:Right....</title>
	<author>aaarrrgggh</author>
	<datestamp>1247489760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look at the number of sites that switched from Google Maps to BingEarth or whatever the hell it is called over the last month.  MS will buy market share if it needs to.  If the product is at least on-par, it isn't hard to take a significant portion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at the number of sites that switched from Google Maps to BingEarth or whatever the hell it is called over the last month .
MS will buy market share if it needs to .
If the product is at least on-par , it is n't hard to take a significant portion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at the number of sites that switched from Google Maps to BingEarth or whatever the hell it is called over the last month.
MS will buy market share if it needs to.
If the product is at least on-par, it isn't hard to take a significant portion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677849</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28693015</id>
	<title>WRONG</title>
	<author>xmvince</author>
	<datestamp>1247594640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google isn't attacking microsoft at all, they are simply complying with the Anti-trust people that are telling them they need to be more competitive. You really think Google is gonna give it their best effort with this new OS? Definitely not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is n't attacking microsoft at all , they are simply complying with the Anti-trust people that are telling them they need to be more competitive .
You really think Google is gon na give it their best effort with this new OS ?
Definitely not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google isn't attacking microsoft at all, they are simply complying with the Anti-trust people that are telling them they need to be more competitive.
You really think Google is gonna give it their best effort with this new OS?
Definitely not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677943</id>
	<title>Spy vs Spy</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1247505540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does this whole thing remind anyone else of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spy\_vs\_spy" title="wikipedia.org">Spy vs Spy</a> [wikipedia.org]? From TFA: "But companies, like people, strive and dream and in this case both dream, at least sometimes, of destroying the other. Only they can't -- or won't -- do it in the end, because it is against the interests of either company to do so."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this whole thing remind anyone else of Spy vs Spy [ wikipedia.org ] ?
From TFA : " But companies , like people , strive and dream and in this case both dream , at least sometimes , of destroying the other .
Only they ca n't -- or wo n't -- do it in the end , because it is against the interests of either company to do so .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this whole thing remind anyone else of Spy vs Spy [wikipedia.org]?
From TFA: "But companies, like people, strive and dream and in this case both dream, at least sometimes, of destroying the other.
Only they can't -- or won't -- do it in the end, because it is against the interests of either company to do so.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679533</id>
	<title>distorted market</title>
	<author>rs232</author>
	<datestamp>1247510760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's curious is that that it took an <strong>Internet Search Company</strong> to produce the first/newest <strong>Operating System</strong> - in years <strong>!</strong></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's curious is that that it took an Internet Search Company to produce the first/newest Operating System - in years !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's curious is that that it took an Internet Search Company to produce the first/newest Operating System - in years !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28685485</id>
	<title>Re: delete source code and documentation</title>
	<author>neonsignal</author>
	<datestamp>1247498160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I idly wonder if destroying Windows documentation would make much difference to understanding the code base<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I idly wonder if destroying Windows documentation would make much difference to understanding the code base : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I idly wonder if destroying Windows documentation would make much difference to understanding the code base :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679417</id>
	<title>What war?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1247510400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, I know. The "war" that you need to make up, to sell your "news".</p><p>Well, here is some other "news" for you.</p><p>"Cringley makes up news! Could it be that he got an alcohol problem? Or does he just rape his daughter on a regular basis?"</p><p>And, Mr. Cringley? How does it feel? Bad, doesn't it?<br>See...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , I know .
The " war " that you need to make up , to sell your " news " .Well , here is some other " news " for you .
" Cringley makes up news !
Could it be that he got an alcohol problem ?
Or does he just rape his daughter on a regular basis ?
" And , Mr. Cringley ? How does it feel ?
Bad , does n't it ? See.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, I know.
The "war" that you need to make up, to sell your "news".Well, here is some other "news" for you.
"Cringley makes up news!
Could it be that he got an alcohol problem?
Or does he just rape his daughter on a regular basis?
"And, Mr. Cringley? How does it feel?
Bad, doesn't it?See...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28683483</id>
	<title>Why was that modded up?</title>
	<author>billstewart</author>
	<datestamp>1247483280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, come on, people, why did you mod that a +5?  I was just trolling, because there was a 0-comment article there and I hadn't had a First Post in years<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)  I suppose it's ok to leave it modded up now that it's done, since there's some actual useful followup, but really now!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , come on , people , why did you mod that a + 5 ?
I was just trolling , because there was a 0-comment article there and I had n't had a First Post in years : - ) I suppose it 's ok to leave it modded up now that it 's done , since there 's some actual useful followup , but really now !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, come on, people, why did you mod that a +5?
I was just trolling, because there was a 0-comment article there and I hadn't had a First Post in years :-)  I suppose it's ok to leave it modded up now that it's done, since there's some actual useful followup, but really now!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678427</id>
	<title>Chrome OS  Direct Attack on Windows</title>
	<author>Junior J. Junior III</author>
	<datestamp>1247507100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's what <i>would</i> be a "direct attack" on Windows:</p><p>Attempting to hack into Microsoft's corporate intranet and delete the source code and documentation for Windows.<br>Releasing into the wild malware that targets windows installed base and destroys systems that run Windows.</p><p>Taking on a project to come up with your own operating system isn't an attack on Windows.  It's competition.  Windows doesn't have any inherent right to its marketshare.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's what would be a " direct attack " on Windows : Attempting to hack into Microsoft 's corporate intranet and delete the source code and documentation for Windows.Releasing into the wild malware that targets windows installed base and destroys systems that run Windows.Taking on a project to come up with your own operating system is n't an attack on Windows .
It 's competition .
Windows does n't have any inherent right to its marketshare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's what would be a "direct attack" on Windows:Attempting to hack into Microsoft's corporate intranet and delete the source code and documentation for Windows.Releasing into the wild malware that targets windows installed base and destroys systems that run Windows.Taking on a project to come up with your own operating system isn't an attack on Windows.
It's competition.
Windows doesn't have any inherent right to its marketshare.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28681949</id>
	<title>Re:That's just crazy talk.</title>
	<author>Xachariah</author>
	<datestamp>1247476740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I read that as "if there were no Linux free IEDs".

It really is an attack on microsoft!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read that as " if there were no Linux free IEDs " .
It really is an attack on microsoft !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read that as "if there were no Linux free IEDs".
It really is an attack on microsoft!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28686449</id>
	<title>consumer holocaust!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247505300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So lets see two companies competing against each other by creating the best possible products they can for their customers....</p><p>yeah this is sure to be a huge devastating holocaust for consumers</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So lets see two companies competing against each other by creating the best possible products they can for their customers....yeah this is sure to be a huge devastating holocaust for consumers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So lets see two companies competing against each other by creating the best possible products they can for their customers....yeah this is sure to be a huge devastating holocaust for consumers</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679241</id>
	<title>Art of War?</title>
	<author>foley500</author>
	<datestamp>1247509800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>"All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near...."  - Sun Tzu

<br> <br>

Isn't it possible that Google is simply refocusing the battlefield to the OS market as a tactic to keep MS scrambling on multiple fronts?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" All warfare is based on deception .
Hence , when able to attack , we must seem unable ; when using our forces , we must seem inactive ; when we are near , we must make the enemy believe we are far away ; when far away , we must make him believe we are near.... " - Sun Tzu Is n't it possible that Google is simply refocusing the battlefield to the OS market as a tactic to keep MS scrambling on multiple fronts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"All warfare is based on deception.
Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near...."  - Sun Tzu

 

Isn't it possible that Google is simply refocusing the battlefield to the OS market as a tactic to keep MS scrambling on multiple fronts?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677803</id>
	<title>Competition</title>
	<author>rotide</author>
	<datestamp>1247505120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I for one am pleased that another company is attempting to take a slice of the OS market.  Competition will bring innovation and invention.  Maybe we'll actually start to see something NEW emerge and not just recycled ideas.<p>
With any luck, Google and MS will battle it out for a long time in the OS department.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I for one am pleased that another company is attempting to take a slice of the OS market .
Competition will bring innovation and invention .
Maybe we 'll actually start to see something NEW emerge and not just recycled ideas .
With any luck , Google and MS will battle it out for a long time in the OS department .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I for one am pleased that another company is attempting to take a slice of the OS market.
Competition will bring innovation and invention.
Maybe we'll actually start to see something NEW emerge and not just recycled ideas.
With any luck, Google and MS will battle it out for a long time in the OS department.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28682339</id>
	<title>Re:First Nuclear Weapon Equipped Post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247478420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am a pacifist you insensitive clod!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a pacifist you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a pacifist you insensitive clod!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680551</id>
	<title>Re:First Nuclear Weapon Equipped Post</title>
	<author>AKAImBatman</author>
	<datestamp>1247514120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, for crying out loud. The parent is NOT, I repeat NOT, flamebait.</p><p>Well, ok. Calling Carter a dolt was uncalled for, but so is saying the same of Bush. You see, the government has a bit of an unwritten rule around the pronunciation of "nuclear". It's a rule that was introduced for propaganda purposes, but hasn't always worked like they want it to.</p><p>Basically, government officials always pronounce the <i>weapons</i> as "nucular arsenal". This pronounciation is intended to associate the term with "bad", "danger", and "massive destruction". When they're referring to nuclear in the context of power generation or some other "good" aspect, it's supposed to be properly pronounced as "nuclear".</p><p>Of course, it didn't exactly work out as planned. The public sees no difference between "nucular" and "nuclear". Worse yet, the politicians often get the two mixed up anyway, thus failing at the message they're supposed to be delivering. But the concept is still out there and the Presidents have tried to somewhat follow it.</p><p>If you're interested in the origin of the use of "nucular" in the government, it goes back to Eisenhower. Eisenhower pushed a program known as "Atoms for Peace". Unfortunately, he couldn't pronounce "nuclear" correctly to save his life. As such, the term "nucular" ended up in the government lexicon.</p><p>Besides, there's a long tradition of never contradicting the President. Past or present. A tradition abused by the airforce to get the name of the RS-71 changed to SR-71. But that's another story...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , for crying out loud .
The parent is NOT , I repeat NOT , flamebait.Well , ok. Calling Carter a dolt was uncalled for , but so is saying the same of Bush .
You see , the government has a bit of an unwritten rule around the pronunciation of " nuclear " .
It 's a rule that was introduced for propaganda purposes , but has n't always worked like they want it to.Basically , government officials always pronounce the weapons as " nucular arsenal " .
This pronounciation is intended to associate the term with " bad " , " danger " , and " massive destruction " .
When they 're referring to nuclear in the context of power generation or some other " good " aspect , it 's supposed to be properly pronounced as " nuclear " .Of course , it did n't exactly work out as planned .
The public sees no difference between " nucular " and " nuclear " .
Worse yet , the politicians often get the two mixed up anyway , thus failing at the message they 're supposed to be delivering .
But the concept is still out there and the Presidents have tried to somewhat follow it.If you 're interested in the origin of the use of " nucular " in the government , it goes back to Eisenhower .
Eisenhower pushed a program known as " Atoms for Peace " .
Unfortunately , he could n't pronounce " nuclear " correctly to save his life .
As such , the term " nucular " ended up in the government lexicon.Besides , there 's a long tradition of never contradicting the President .
Past or present .
A tradition abused by the airforce to get the name of the RS-71 changed to SR-71 .
But that 's another story... ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, for crying out loud.
The parent is NOT, I repeat NOT, flamebait.Well, ok. Calling Carter a dolt was uncalled for, but so is saying the same of Bush.
You see, the government has a bit of an unwritten rule around the pronunciation of "nuclear".
It's a rule that was introduced for propaganda purposes, but hasn't always worked like they want it to.Basically, government officials always pronounce the weapons as "nucular arsenal".
This pronounciation is intended to associate the term with "bad", "danger", and "massive destruction".
When they're referring to nuclear in the context of power generation or some other "good" aspect, it's supposed to be properly pronounced as "nuclear".Of course, it didn't exactly work out as planned.
The public sees no difference between "nucular" and "nuclear".
Worse yet, the politicians often get the two mixed up anyway, thus failing at the message they're supposed to be delivering.
But the concept is still out there and the Presidents have tried to somewhat follow it.If you're interested in the origin of the use of "nucular" in the government, it goes back to Eisenhower.
Eisenhower pushed a program known as "Atoms for Peace".
Unfortunately, he couldn't pronounce "nuclear" correctly to save his life.
As such, the term "nucular" ended up in the government lexicon.Besides, there's a long tradition of never contradicting the President.
Past or present.
A tradition abused by the airforce to get the name of the RS-71 changed to SR-71.
But that's another story... ;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678771</id>
	<title>Why does "more" mean "no more" in /.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247508240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hit more "more" and get no more messages.  I'm thinking taco needs jacob nielsen for a couple hours consultation or something.</p><p>It also says "hit submit" but then says "you can't use this resource".</p><p>wtf?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hit more " more " and get no more messages .
I 'm thinking taco needs jacob nielsen for a couple hours consultation or something.It also says " hit submit " but then says " you ca n't use this resource " .wtf ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hit more "more" and get no more messages.
I'm thinking taco needs jacob nielsen for a couple hours consultation or something.It also says "hit submit" but then says "you can't use this resource".wtf?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28681277</id>
	<title>Re:First Nuclear Weapon Equipped Post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247517300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fridge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fridge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fridge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678309</id>
	<title>Mutually assured?</title>
	<author>frozentier</author>
	<datestamp>1247506680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mutually assured destruction?  Hardly.  Chrome's guaranteed destruction?  Almost guaranteed.  Not saying that Microsoft deserves to stay on top, but that's what's going to happen.  You would have to have balls made of plutonium to think you could take them down with anything less than endless litigation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mutually assured destruction ?
Hardly. Chrome 's guaranteed destruction ?
Almost guaranteed .
Not saying that Microsoft deserves to stay on top , but that 's what 's going to happen .
You would have to have balls made of plutonium to think you could take them down with anything less than endless litigation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mutually assured destruction?
Hardly.  Chrome's guaranteed destruction?
Almost guaranteed.
Not saying that Microsoft deserves to stay on top, but that's what's going to happen.
You would have to have balls made of plutonium to think you could take them down with anything less than endless litigation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678115</id>
	<title>Google is replacing Apple.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247506020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Though fashion based marketing might fool you otherwise; Google has replaced Apple as the for-profit alternative to Microsoft.  Both Microsoft and Apple are increasingly commodity hosts for Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Though fashion based marketing might fool you otherwise ; Google has replaced Apple as the for-profit alternative to Microsoft .
Both Microsoft and Apple are increasingly commodity hosts for Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Though fashion based marketing might fool you otherwise; Google has replaced Apple as the for-profit alternative to Microsoft.
Both Microsoft and Apple are increasingly commodity hosts for Google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679183</id>
	<title>Re:First Nuclear Weapon Equipped Post</title>
	<author>Shikaku</author>
	<datestamp>1247509560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Billy Mays is dead you insensitive clod!</p><p>(for joke reference: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dvzgLXa-dI" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dvzgLXa-dI</a> [youtube.com])</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Billy Mays is dead you insensitive clod !
( for joke reference : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = -dvzgLXa-dI [ youtube.com ] )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Billy Mays is dead you insensitive clod!
(for joke reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dvzgLXa-dI [youtube.com])</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679049</id>
	<title>Re:First Nuclear Weapon Equipped Post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247509080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Gah. I read that as "Nukular". Curse you Bush! *shakes fist*</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gah .
I read that as " Nukular " .
Curse you Bush !
* shakes fist *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gah.
I read that as "Nukular".
Curse you Bush!
*shakes fist*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28682495</id>
	<title>Re:Dear Mr Cringley</title>
	<author>fortfive</author>
	<datestamp>1247479080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I believe this is competition the way I believe Oswald killed Kennedy.<br> <br>

Both MS and Google are under scrutiny as potential illegal monopolies.  By creating "competitors" to each others' chief products, they both can get the SEC, etc. off their backs.  Especially if the gov't doesn't really want to enforce anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe this is competition the way I believe Oswald killed Kennedy .
Both MS and Google are under scrutiny as potential illegal monopolies .
By creating " competitors " to each others ' chief products , they both can get the SEC , etc .
off their backs .
Especially if the gov't does n't really want to enforce anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe this is competition the way I believe Oswald killed Kennedy.
Both MS and Google are under scrutiny as potential illegal monopolies.
By creating "competitors" to each others' chief products, they both can get the SEC, etc.
off their backs.
Especially if the gov't doesn't really want to enforce anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677739</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677749</id>
	<title>I hope Microsoft gets stuffed by Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247505000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Their products suck badly, their licencing sucks badly, their monopoly sucks badly, their whole attitude sucks really badly.<br>They're so overdue to be brought down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Their products suck badly , their licencing sucks badly , their monopoly sucks badly , their whole attitude sucks really badly.They 're so overdue to be brought down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their products suck badly, their licencing sucks badly, their monopoly sucks badly, their whole attitude sucks really badly.They're so overdue to be brought down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678139</id>
	<title>Security an issue with Chrome?</title>
	<author>gubers33</author>
	<datestamp>1247506080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Robert Hansen found a flaw in the first day of using it that Chrome allows Javascript to run in View Source, meaning you can't check potentially harmful pages without Javascript running off. Didn't Chrome market itself as the most secure browser? Anyway IE, Firefox, Safari and Opera all caught this, yet Google missed it with Chrome. I'm sure their new operating system will have tons of neat features just like their browser, but will they miss out on the security end again while boasting they are the most secure? I'll still with my Ubuntu and Firefox for now thank you and avoid both Microsoft and Googles security flaws.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Robert Hansen found a flaw in the first day of using it that Chrome allows Javascript to run in View Source , meaning you ca n't check potentially harmful pages without Javascript running off .
Did n't Chrome market itself as the most secure browser ?
Anyway IE , Firefox , Safari and Opera all caught this , yet Google missed it with Chrome .
I 'm sure their new operating system will have tons of neat features just like their browser , but will they miss out on the security end again while boasting they are the most secure ?
I 'll still with my Ubuntu and Firefox for now thank you and avoid both Microsoft and Googles security flaws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Robert Hansen found a flaw in the first day of using it that Chrome allows Javascript to run in View Source, meaning you can't check potentially harmful pages without Javascript running off.
Didn't Chrome market itself as the most secure browser?
Anyway IE, Firefox, Safari and Opera all caught this, yet Google missed it with Chrome.
I'm sure their new operating system will have tons of neat features just like their browser, but will they miss out on the security end again while boasting they are the most secure?
I'll still with my Ubuntu and Firefox for now thank you and avoid both Microsoft and Googles security flaws.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28690017</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247581800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is Eric Schmidts way of destroying a company like Sun and Novell.  Good luck Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is Eric Schmidts way of destroying a company like Sun and Novell .
Good luck Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is Eric Schmidts way of destroying a company like Sun and Novell.
Good luck Google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28682581</id>
	<title>Robert X. Cringely isn't who you think "he" is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247479440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I found this article, and its sources, fascinating, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert\_X.\_Cringely.</p><p>If you think Cringely might be a Microsoft shill, it'd be convenient to know who Cringely actually is, today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I found this article , and its sources , fascinating , http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert \ _X. \ _Cringely.If you think Cringely might be a Microsoft shill , it 'd be convenient to know who Cringely actually is , today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I found this article, and its sources, fascinating, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert\_X.\_Cringely.If you think Cringely might be a Microsoft shill, it'd be convenient to know who Cringely actually is, today.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28687751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677769
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679073
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28681277
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678367
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679119
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28684469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678393
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679049
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28685965
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28682495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28681949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677975
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678631
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680549
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28687771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28682007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677981
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680267
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678269
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28684557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28690575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28687499
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28685475
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677769
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678269
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28685383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679119
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28684395
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678817
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678009
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28686931
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677875
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678787
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678269
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677913
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678185
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678269
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677975
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28684453
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679909
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28682339
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28684437
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28684963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28685485
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677737
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679119
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28685955
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678269
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680535
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28683483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28684317
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678565
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678385
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28681349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28685827
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680637
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680499
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677975
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680479
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28683055
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677875
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28690445
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678269
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680193
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_157227_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28684073
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_157227.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677735
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679049
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679339
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28682339
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28683483
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679847
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679183
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28685965
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28681277
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28682007
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_157227.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678653
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680971
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28690575
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_157227.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679025
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28684073
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28684437
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28685827
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_157227.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677975
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28684453
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680479
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680059
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_157227.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678255
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_157227.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678005
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_157227.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678057
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_157227.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679201
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_157227.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678019
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_157227.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677849
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28684557
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_157227.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677875
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678787
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28690445
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_157227.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677781
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28687751
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_157227.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677737
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678839
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_157227.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678309
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_157227.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678395
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679377
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678957
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28684963
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_157227.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680513
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_157227.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678139
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678393
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_157227.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677751
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678367
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28685475
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_157227.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677747
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_157227.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679119
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28685955
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28684469
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28684395
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_157227.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677769
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680183
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679073
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_157227.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677919
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680603
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28687771
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28683055
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680549
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_157227.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679065
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_157227.36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677867
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678385
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_157227.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677917
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678631
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678817
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_157227.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28684317
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680303
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28681949
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28686931
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_157227.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677981
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680267
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_157227.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678427
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28685485
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679909
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_157227.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677739
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678565
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678185
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28681349
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679575
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678551
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679463
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680499
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28682495
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_157227.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677749
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677913
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_157227.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678791
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680637
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28687499
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_157227.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677843
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679023
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678383
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678009
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_157227.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677943
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_157227.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678227
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_157227.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677783
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_157227.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28677881
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_157227.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28678269
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28685383
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680535
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680285
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679283
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28679545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_157227.28680193
</commentlist>
</conversation>
