<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_19_1959249</id>
	<title>Xbox 360 Update Will Lock Out Unauthorized Storage</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1255940400000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>itwbennett writes <i>"The other shoe has dropped on the <a href="http://www.itworld.com/personal-tech/81110/microsoft-announces-preview-program-next-xbox-update">upcoming preview program</a> for the next Xbox 360 update and it's going to cost you. In a post on the Major Nelson blog, <a href="http://www.majornelson.com/archive/2009/10/16/unauthorized-xbox-360-storage-devices.aspx">Xbox's Larry Hryb reveals</a> that this next update will <a href="http://www.itworld.com/personal-tech/81418/microsoft-locking-out-unauthorized-xbox-360-storage-units">lock-out unauthorized storage devices</a>. As blogger Peter Smith reminds us, 'the Xbox 360 comes in two (currently) SKUs, one with a hard drive, and one without. The drive-less Xbox 360 Arcade unit is cheap ($199) but to realistically use it, you'll need to buy a "Memory Unit" (basically a proprietary USB stick) or an Xbox hard drive.... A 512 MB Microsoft branded Memory Unit goes for $29.99 at BestBuy.com. A 2 GB third party Memory Unit from Datel goes for $39.99, and the Datel unit is expandable using microSD cards....If you bought the Datel and it's full of data, between now and the launch of the new update you're going to have to run out and buy 4 of the Microsoft units at $29.99 each, or more likely, pick up the $99.99 60GB Live Starter Pack for Xbox 360.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>itwbennett writes " The other shoe has dropped on the upcoming preview program for the next Xbox 360 update and it 's going to cost you .
In a post on the Major Nelson blog , Xbox 's Larry Hryb reveals that this next update will lock-out unauthorized storage devices .
As blogger Peter Smith reminds us , 'the Xbox 360 comes in two ( currently ) SKUs , one with a hard drive , and one without .
The drive-less Xbox 360 Arcade unit is cheap ( $ 199 ) but to realistically use it , you 'll need to buy a " Memory Unit " ( basically a proprietary USB stick ) or an Xbox hard drive.... A 512 MB Microsoft branded Memory Unit goes for $ 29.99 at BestBuy.com .
A 2 GB third party Memory Unit from Datel goes for $ 39.99 , and the Datel unit is expandable using microSD cards....If you bought the Datel and it 's full of data , between now and the launch of the new update you 're going to have to run out and buy 4 of the Microsoft units at $ 29.99 each , or more likely , pick up the $ 99.99 60GB Live Starter Pack for Xbox 360 .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>itwbennett writes "The other shoe has dropped on the upcoming preview program for the next Xbox 360 update and it's going to cost you.
In a post on the Major Nelson blog, Xbox's Larry Hryb reveals that this next update will lock-out unauthorized storage devices.
As blogger Peter Smith reminds us, 'the Xbox 360 comes in two (currently) SKUs, one with a hard drive, and one without.
The drive-less Xbox 360 Arcade unit is cheap ($199) but to realistically use it, you'll need to buy a "Memory Unit" (basically a proprietary USB stick) or an Xbox hard drive.... A 512 MB Microsoft branded Memory Unit goes for $29.99 at BestBuy.com.
A 2 GB third party Memory Unit from Datel goes for $39.99, and the Datel unit is expandable using microSD cards....If you bought the Datel and it's full of data, between now and the launch of the new update you're going to have to run out and buy 4 of the Microsoft units at $29.99 each, or more likely, pick up the $99.99 60GB Live Starter Pack for Xbox 360.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802547</id>
	<title>Security Sector Flashing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255959780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm no genius but couldn't someone create a flashing program (similar to current DVD ROM flashers) that reads the original drive, pulls the security sector then spoofs/writes that sector onto the new drive?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm no genius but could n't someone create a flashing program ( similar to current DVD ROM flashers ) that reads the original drive , pulls the security sector then spoofs/writes that sector onto the new drive ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm no genius but couldn't someone create a flashing program (similar to current DVD ROM flashers) that reads the original drive, pulls the security sector then spoofs/writes that sector onto the new drive?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800807</id>
	<title>Re:PS3..</title>
	<author>TheNinjaroach</author>
	<datestamp>1255949880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sony has disabled the "other os" in recent updates.</p></div><p>No they haven't.  I installed OpenSUSE on fully updated firmware.  "Other OS" is unavailable on the new slim models, supposedly because they are tired of porting drivers for every hardware revision.  Not to mention the fact that even Linux enthusiasts aren't having much fun with the feature..  I prefer to use the PS3-native web browser and media playback functions over booting into Linux and waiting for the hard drive to swap memory for every web page I click with Firefox.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sony has disabled the " other os " in recent updates.No they have n't .
I installed OpenSUSE on fully updated firmware .
" Other OS " is unavailable on the new slim models , supposedly because they are tired of porting drivers for every hardware revision .
Not to mention the fact that even Linux enthusiasts are n't having much fun with the feature.. I prefer to use the PS3-native web browser and media playback functions over booting into Linux and waiting for the hard drive to swap memory for every web page I click with Firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sony has disabled the "other os" in recent updates.No they haven't.
I installed OpenSUSE on fully updated firmware.
"Other OS" is unavailable on the new slim models, supposedly because they are tired of porting drivers for every hardware revision.
Not to mention the fact that even Linux enthusiasts aren't having much fun with the feature..  I prefer to use the PS3-native web browser and media playback functions over booting into Linux and waiting for the hard drive to swap memory for every web page I click with Firefox.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800333</id>
	<title>The Pre could have used supported APIs.</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1255947720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple isn't blocking the Pre from working with iTunes. Apple is blocking the Pre from working with iTunes by pretending it's an iPod. If Palm had used supported APIs (say, by letting you create a "Palm Pre" playlist and then reading the songs from that playlist to sync to the Pre) there wouldn't be a problem. Palm cheaped out to avoid having to write their own sync application (which is crazy, because they made the best handheld sync I've ever used) and used a hack instead.</p><p>People expect publishers to lock out hacks. They don't expect them to lock out stuff using standard APIs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple is n't blocking the Pre from working with iTunes .
Apple is blocking the Pre from working with iTunes by pretending it 's an iPod .
If Palm had used supported APIs ( say , by letting you create a " Palm Pre " playlist and then reading the songs from that playlist to sync to the Pre ) there would n't be a problem .
Palm cheaped out to avoid having to write their own sync application ( which is crazy , because they made the best handheld sync I 've ever used ) and used a hack instead.People expect publishers to lock out hacks .
They do n't expect them to lock out stuff using standard APIs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple isn't blocking the Pre from working with iTunes.
Apple is blocking the Pre from working with iTunes by pretending it's an iPod.
If Palm had used supported APIs (say, by letting you create a "Palm Pre" playlist and then reading the songs from that playlist to sync to the Pre) there wouldn't be a problem.
Palm cheaped out to avoid having to write their own sync application (which is crazy, because they made the best handheld sync I've ever used) and used a hack instead.People expect publishers to lock out hacks.
They don't expect them to lock out stuff using standard APIs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799869</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799661</id>
	<title>Anti-competitive</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1255944840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Locking out the competitor's product should be illegal. If you can't compete because your product is overpriced, you shouldn't be propped up. Yes that may mean that people have to pay the true cost of a console or printer or other device, as it isn't subsidised by content/ink etc. It's called honesty. Manufacturers should try it some time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Locking out the competitor 's product should be illegal .
If you ca n't compete because your product is overpriced , you should n't be propped up .
Yes that may mean that people have to pay the true cost of a console or printer or other device , as it is n't subsidised by content/ink etc .
It 's called honesty .
Manufacturers should try it some time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Locking out the competitor's product should be illegal.
If you can't compete because your product is overpriced, you shouldn't be propped up.
Yes that may mean that people have to pay the true cost of a console or printer or other device, as it isn't subsidised by content/ink etc.
It's called honesty.
Manufacturers should try it some time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802181</id>
	<title>Er... OK?</title>
	<author>Runefox</author>
	<datestamp>1255957560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was my understanding that "unauthorized" meant "bootleg" in this case. <a href="http://support.xbox.com/support/en/us/xbox360/xboxlive/getconnected/xboxlivecompatiblelogo/xboxlivecompatiblelogo.aspx" title="xbox.com">There do exist authorized peripherals, which bear the logos found at this link</a> [xbox.com], and while it's still a bit of a cash-grab on Microsoft's part (licensing), it likely has more to do with anti-cheating than anything - In other words, removing the ability to crack open an SD card on your PC and modify your save files, so as to prevent things like the CoD4 UFO hack and other exploits.</p><p>But don't let me stop the mindless bashing - It's MS, after all, and they deserve it no matter what, right?</p><p>Right?</p><p>Feh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was my understanding that " unauthorized " meant " bootleg " in this case .
There do exist authorized peripherals , which bear the logos found at this link [ xbox.com ] , and while it 's still a bit of a cash-grab on Microsoft 's part ( licensing ) , it likely has more to do with anti-cheating than anything - In other words , removing the ability to crack open an SD card on your PC and modify your save files , so as to prevent things like the CoD4 UFO hack and other exploits.But do n't let me stop the mindless bashing - It 's MS , after all , and they deserve it no matter what , right ? Right ? Feh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was my understanding that "unauthorized" meant "bootleg" in this case.
There do exist authorized peripherals, which bear the logos found at this link [xbox.com], and while it's still a bit of a cash-grab on Microsoft's part (licensing), it likely has more to do with anti-cheating than anything - In other words, removing the ability to crack open an SD card on your PC and modify your save files, so as to prevent things like the CoD4 UFO hack and other exploits.But don't let me stop the mindless bashing - It's MS, after all, and they deserve it no matter what, right?Right?Feh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29821185</id>
	<title>Re:Audacious.</title>
	<author>CaseM</author>
	<datestamp>1256125380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So Sony, with their allowance of FAT32-formatted 2.5 inch drives, has given up on digital distribution?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So Sony , with their allowance of FAT32-formatted 2.5 inch drives , has given up on digital distribution ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Sony, with their allowance of FAT32-formatted 2.5 inch drives, has given up on digital distribution?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799601</id>
	<title>Re:Or 120GB for $54.99</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255944660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Isn't that exactly what they're doing here? Locking out unauthorized storage.</p></div><p>I understand what you're saying but I do not know how they would do this.  I'm <b>not</b> a hardware guy but what I do know of firmware is that if you're <a href="http://beta.ivancover.com/wiki/index.php/Xbox\_360\_Hard\_Drive\_Upgrade#Downloads" title="ivancover.com">making this drive look like the correct corresponding WD1200BEV drive</a> [ivancover.com] firmware-wise<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... how will the XBox360 know the difference?  I assume these firmware dumps are binary dumps from actual Microsoft licensed drives so while I'm not saying it's impossible, it would sure be impressive if they can pull that off.  Because I imagine it would have to disable <i>a lot</i> of valid drives unless they took care to sign each unique drive and (on top of that) have a way to validate it against a server.  I heavily doubt they would go to that lengths to prevent such a small portion of the population from saving money on an upgrade.  <br> <br>

I would say this is a very safe alternative.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't that exactly what they 're doing here ?
Locking out unauthorized storage.I understand what you 're saying but I do not know how they would do this .
I 'm not a hardware guy but what I do know of firmware is that if you 're making this drive look like the correct corresponding WD1200BEV drive [ ivancover.com ] firmware-wise ... how will the XBox360 know the difference ?
I assume these firmware dumps are binary dumps from actual Microsoft licensed drives so while I 'm not saying it 's impossible , it would sure be impressive if they can pull that off .
Because I imagine it would have to disable a lot of valid drives unless they took care to sign each unique drive and ( on top of that ) have a way to validate it against a server .
I heavily doubt they would go to that lengths to prevent such a small portion of the population from saving money on an upgrade .
I would say this is a very safe alternative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't that exactly what they're doing here?
Locking out unauthorized storage.I understand what you're saying but I do not know how they would do this.
I'm not a hardware guy but what I do know of firmware is that if you're making this drive look like the correct corresponding WD1200BEV drive [ivancover.com] firmware-wise ... how will the XBox360 know the difference?
I assume these firmware dumps are binary dumps from actual Microsoft licensed drives so while I'm not saying it's impossible, it would sure be impressive if they can pull that off.
Because I imagine it would have to disable a lot of valid drives unless they took care to sign each unique drive and (on top of that) have a way to validate it against a server.
I heavily doubt they would go to that lengths to prevent such a small portion of the population from saving money on an upgrade.
I would say this is a very safe alternative.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799855</id>
	<title>Re:Anti-competitive</title>
	<author>cryfreedomlove</author>
	<datestamp>1255945620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is not anti-competitive at all.  The Sony PS3 and Nintendo Wii platforms are free to approach the same issue in a different way and Microsoft can do nothing about it.  Also, syousef, you could launch your own game platform company and open up you game console to 3rd party storage.  If this topic is really something that consumers care about then they'll beat a path to your door.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not anti-competitive at all .
The Sony PS3 and Nintendo Wii platforms are free to approach the same issue in a different way and Microsoft can do nothing about it .
Also , syousef , you could launch your own game platform company and open up you game console to 3rd party storage .
If this topic is really something that consumers care about then they 'll beat a path to your door .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not anti-competitive at all.
The Sony PS3 and Nintendo Wii platforms are free to approach the same issue in a different way and Microsoft can do nothing about it.
Also, syousef, you could launch your own game platform company and open up you game console to 3rd party storage.
If this topic is really something that consumers care about then they'll beat a path to your door.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802217</id>
	<title>Re:Small Monthly Fees, Get Used to It</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255957800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thats why I don't buy this shit.  If this shit can call home and they can do what ever they want to "your" product then its not really yours even if you paid for it.  This is how they will control you in the future.  I see people texting and using their cell phones all the time.  I can't get a date because I don't text and use a cell phone to talk.  I'm not connected to their network.  Making the man being able to control all of them while I stay at home with no life because I am not connected.  I still have my freedom and I am the last person on this fucking planet while "big brother" controls the drones walking around me.  Its already happening right now and I am so alone... and people think I need a tinfoil hat.  I just feel sorry for everyone else while there is nothing much I can do about it.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thats why I do n't buy this shit .
If this shit can call home and they can do what ever they want to " your " product then its not really yours even if you paid for it .
This is how they will control you in the future .
I see people texting and using their cell phones all the time .
I ca n't get a date because I do n't text and use a cell phone to talk .
I 'm not connected to their network .
Making the man being able to control all of them while I stay at home with no life because I am not connected .
I still have my freedom and I am the last person on this fucking planet while " big brother " controls the drones walking around me .
Its already happening right now and I am so alone... and people think I need a tinfoil hat .
I just feel sorry for everyone else while there is nothing much I can do about it .
: (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thats why I don't buy this shit.
If this shit can call home and they can do what ever they want to "your" product then its not really yours even if you paid for it.
This is how they will control you in the future.
I see people texting and using their cell phones all the time.
I can't get a date because I don't text and use a cell phone to talk.
I'm not connected to their network.
Making the man being able to control all of them while I stay at home with no life because I am not connected.
I still have my freedom and I am the last person on this fucking planet while "big brother" controls the drones walking around me.
Its already happening right now and I am so alone... and people think I need a tinfoil hat.
I just feel sorry for everyone else while there is nothing much I can do about it.
:(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801241</id>
	<title>Re:Audacious.</title>
	<author>TimothyDavis</author>
	<datestamp>1255952400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This probably stems from Microsoft wanting to control the storage devices from 'hacking'.  This includes both game content (altering the game image, or other game metadata), and video/audio content (removing content protection and copying to a PC). <br> <br>Blocking different storage methods may not prevent the altering of content, but would likely make it more difficult.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This probably stems from Microsoft wanting to control the storage devices from 'hacking' .
This includes both game content ( altering the game image , or other game metadata ) , and video/audio content ( removing content protection and copying to a PC ) .
Blocking different storage methods may not prevent the altering of content , but would likely make it more difficult .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This probably stems from Microsoft wanting to control the storage devices from 'hacking'.
This includes both game content (altering the game image, or other game metadata), and video/audio content (removing content protection and copying to a PC).
Blocking different storage methods may not prevent the altering of content, but would likely make it more difficult.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801617</id>
	<title>hilarious</title>
	<author>Zoidbot</author>
	<datestamp>1255954260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's hilarious reading all the brainless American morons desperately trying to defend this (and the forthcoming Xbox Live subs increase to $100)...   We have a bet a work to see how far Microsoft can screw them over, and still watch the dumb fanboys defend them..  This so far takes the biscuit...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's hilarious reading all the brainless American morons desperately trying to defend this ( and the forthcoming Xbox Live subs increase to $ 100 ) ... We have a bet a work to see how far Microsoft can screw them over , and still watch the dumb fanboys defend them.. This so far takes the biscuit.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's hilarious reading all the brainless American morons desperately trying to defend this (and the forthcoming Xbox Live subs increase to $100)...   We have a bet a work to see how far Microsoft can screw them over, and still watch the dumb fanboys defend them..  This so far takes the biscuit...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29804379</id>
	<title>Re:PCs still work the same</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255976880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but MS seems to want to kill the PC as a gaming platform, and thanks to the dominance of DirectX over OpenGL they pretty much own it as much as they own the X-Box.</p><p>Mind you, the best thing about the PC is that the hardware is virtually free, if you don't want a Ninja-state-of-the-art machine.  I now have 3 OK-spec machines all assembled from bits of PCs found dumped in the street.  I could have had even several more only I often can't face lugging the things home to see what bits work.  We're talking Radeon 9600XT and Pentium 4, so a bit behind the times, but still, not bad compared with consoles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but MS seems to want to kill the PC as a gaming platform , and thanks to the dominance of DirectX over OpenGL they pretty much own it as much as they own the X-Box.Mind you , the best thing about the PC is that the hardware is virtually free , if you do n't want a Ninja-state-of-the-art machine .
I now have 3 OK-spec machines all assembled from bits of PCs found dumped in the street .
I could have had even several more only I often ca n't face lugging the things home to see what bits work .
We 're talking Radeon 9600XT and Pentium 4 , so a bit behind the times , but still , not bad compared with consoles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but MS seems to want to kill the PC as a gaming platform, and thanks to the dominance of DirectX over OpenGL they pretty much own it as much as they own the X-Box.Mind you, the best thing about the PC is that the hardware is virtually free, if you don't want a Ninja-state-of-the-art machine.
I now have 3 OK-spec machines all assembled from bits of PCs found dumped in the street.
I could have had even several more only I often can't face lugging the things home to see what bits work.
We're talking Radeon 9600XT and Pentium 4, so a bit behind the times, but still, not bad compared with consoles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800683</id>
	<title>Re:Audacious.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255949280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What they should be doing is selling storage for the inflated prices but including download credits for a good chunk of the purchase price of the storage. Charging $99.99 for the 60G product would seem more reasonable if it came with a ~$75 code that could be used to purchase downloads since it would lower the apparent cost of the physical object to $24.99 while not lowering MS's profit on the product by all that much.</p><p>It would have the added benefit of getting people in the habit of purchasing downloads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What they should be doing is selling storage for the inflated prices but including download credits for a good chunk of the purchase price of the storage .
Charging $ 99.99 for the 60G product would seem more reasonable if it came with a ~ $ 75 code that could be used to purchase downloads since it would lower the apparent cost of the physical object to $ 24.99 while not lowering MS 's profit on the product by all that much.It would have the added benefit of getting people in the habit of purchasing downloads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What they should be doing is selling storage for the inflated prices but including download credits for a good chunk of the purchase price of the storage.
Charging $99.99 for the 60G product would seem more reasonable if it came with a ~$75 code that could be used to purchase downloads since it would lower the apparent cost of the physical object to $24.99 while not lowering MS's profit on the product by all that much.It would have the added benefit of getting people in the habit of purchasing downloads.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799891</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799831</id>
	<title>Re:Audacious.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255945500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well stated, but I think when you also combine this news with the recent story that <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/173883/xbox\_live\_worth\_a\_price\_hike.html" title="pcworld.com">MSFT is looking to double the price of an XBOX Live subscription to $100/year or more</a> [pcworld.com], then it paints a picture that MSFT is getting desperate to squeeze a profit out of their gaming devision for fear of losing the whole thing if they don't soon. Makes me really wonder about their financial picture in general that they seem to not be able to invest in this area with a long term growth vision anymore, even when they are currently losing to the Wii.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well stated , but I think when you also combine this news with the recent story that MSFT is looking to double the price of an XBOX Live subscription to $ 100/year or more [ pcworld.com ] , then it paints a picture that MSFT is getting desperate to squeeze a profit out of their gaming devision for fear of losing the whole thing if they do n't soon .
Makes me really wonder about their financial picture in general that they seem to not be able to invest in this area with a long term growth vision anymore , even when they are currently losing to the Wii .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well stated, but I think when you also combine this news with the recent story that MSFT is looking to double the price of an XBOX Live subscription to $100/year or more [pcworld.com], then it paints a picture that MSFT is getting desperate to squeeze a profit out of their gaming devision for fear of losing the whole thing if they don't soon.
Makes me really wonder about their financial picture in general that they seem to not be able to invest in this area with a long term growth vision anymore, even when they are currently losing to the Wii.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800505</id>
	<title>Wow!</title>
	<author>ma1wrbu5tr</author>
	<datestamp>1255948500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess I'm NOT going to be buying an XBox for Christmas this year. It was down to the PS3 and the
XBox. Now, I'll have to take a second look at the Wii. Any<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.ers have preferences out there as far as game quality vs price? (yeah, like I have to ask a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./er for an opinion)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess I 'm NOT going to be buying an XBox for Christmas this year .
It was down to the PS3 and the XBox .
Now , I 'll have to take a second look at the Wii .
Any /.ers have preferences out there as far as game quality vs price ?
( yeah , like I have to ask a ./er for an opinion )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess I'm NOT going to be buying an XBox for Christmas this year.
It was down to the PS3 and the
XBox.
Now, I'll have to take a second look at the Wii.
Any /.ers have preferences out there as far as game quality vs price?
(yeah, like I have to ask a ./er for an opinion)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29804355</id>
	<title>Re:Is is legal to remove functions after purchase?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255976400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IANAL, but perhaps a case can be made against them for digital vandalism?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAL , but perhaps a case can be made against them for digital vandalism ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANAL, but perhaps a case can be made against them for digital vandalism?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802065</id>
	<title>Re:Misinformation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255956960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless you bought an Arcade before they upgraded it with 512M internal? Anything pre-"New X-Box Experience". If you have one of those old units, and are relying on 3rd party memory for your downloads/saves, you can throw your argument out of the window.</p><p>-Category-</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless you bought an Arcade before they upgraded it with 512M internal ?
Anything pre- " New X-Box Experience " .
If you have one of those old units , and are relying on 3rd party memory for your downloads/saves , you can throw your argument out of the window.-Category-</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless you bought an Arcade before they upgraded it with 512M internal?
Anything pre-"New X-Box Experience".
If you have one of those old units, and are relying on 3rd party memory for your downloads/saves, you can throw your argument out of the window.-Category-</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802937</id>
	<title>Re:Audacious.</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1255962780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree that MS takes control seriously; but I don't think that that is stopping them from supporting 3rd party USB MSC devices and hard drives.<br> <br>

Consider: Microsoft's own hard drive is a more or less normal SATA drive in a funny enclosure. You can easily enough connect it to a computer just by cracking the case, or with a simple passive adapter(that microsoft actually makes). I assume that the 360 uses some mixture of encrypting/signing/hash-checking (with keys and hashes stored internally) to make tampering with files on the drive impractical. Exactly the same technique would work with third party devices.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that MS takes control seriously ; but I do n't think that that is stopping them from supporting 3rd party USB MSC devices and hard drives .
Consider : Microsoft 's own hard drive is a more or less normal SATA drive in a funny enclosure .
You can easily enough connect it to a computer just by cracking the case , or with a simple passive adapter ( that microsoft actually makes ) .
I assume that the 360 uses some mixture of encrypting/signing/hash-checking ( with keys and hashes stored internally ) to make tampering with files on the drive impractical .
Exactly the same technique would work with third party devices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that MS takes control seriously; but I don't think that that is stopping them from supporting 3rd party USB MSC devices and hard drives.
Consider: Microsoft's own hard drive is a more or less normal SATA drive in a funny enclosure.
You can easily enough connect it to a computer just by cracking the case, or with a simple passive adapter(that microsoft actually makes).
I assume that the 360 uses some mixture of encrypting/signing/hash-checking (with keys and hashes stored internally) to make tampering with files on the drive impractical.
Exactly the same technique would work with third party devices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800235</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29812359</id>
	<title>Re:Well...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256068080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bull... I shop at Wal-Mart all the time because they HAVE killed the competition.  The prices have only changed, like everyone else's, due to the lessening value of the $.  They have never taken me for all I have.  Real Insightful!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bull... I shop at Wal-Mart all the time because they HAVE killed the competition .
The prices have only changed , like everyone else 's , due to the lessening value of the $ .
They have never taken me for all I have .
Real Insightful !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bull... I shop at Wal-Mart all the time because they HAVE killed the competition.
The prices have only changed, like everyone else's, due to the lessening value of the $.
They have never taken me for all I have.
Real Insightful!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802751</id>
	<title>In other news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255961100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... Craiglist is flooded with second-hand XBox 360's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... Craiglist is flooded with second-hand XBox 360 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... Craiglist is flooded with second-hand XBox 360's.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29805121</id>
	<title>Re:Small Monthly Fees, Get Used to It</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256031060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pretty sure I don't have *anything* that I use on that basis, does "renting" a house count?</p><p>Mobile phone - my property.  (was originally on a &pound;20/month contract, but I had it for over a year and it then became my property)<br>Mobile phone SIM - my property.<br>Mobile phone "contract" - Pay as you go / Prepaid.<br>Mobile phone "phone number" - legal right to transfer, on demand, to any provider I like in my country.<br>Mobile broadband dongle - my property.  (one-off payment of &pound;25 to purchase the device outright from a high-street store)<br>Mobile broadband SIM - my property.<br>Mobile broadband "contract" - Pay as you go / Prepaid.<br>Mobile broadband "phone number" - legal right to transfer, on demand, to any provider I like in my country.</p><p>All computer software (including every game) - "owned" (irrevocable, perpetual license)<br>All computer hardware (including every games console / handheld) - my property.</p><p>I don't think we're anywhere near *everything* being rented, but there are an awful lot of people out there who are willing to rent property.  Basically, if I couldn't get the above on the terms I want, I wouldn't use them.  Mobile broadband passed me by until a cheap, PAYG dongle arrived on my high street (and I'm the most technical person I know, so people were always asking why I didn't have it).  My phone has been off contract for *YEARS* and I have no intention of going back.  I don't pay monthly fees for anything else except things like gas, electric, water, tax, and that's a "pay in advance" not "you're only renting that water" system.  Probably house rent is the only true "you don't own it, but pay me" system I've used for any length of time and no-one *wants* to rent if there's an option to buy.</p><p>My mother, though, rented a television for 27 years until we showed her what it was costing (i.e. enough for a new TV every year).  Similarly, with renting a phone from a telecoms company for their landline - some people are *still* doing that because they think they have to.  It's a case of getting something on a trial basis and then getting into the habit of paying it forever without noticing - only the naive people do it.</p><p>Monthly fees are for *services* (roadside breakdown assistance, insurance, etc.) and for pre-paying bills conveniently (gas, water, electric).  Anyone who does anything else probably doesn't realise what it's costing them and/or doesn't care about owning the product (mobile phone contract come to mind because most of the people I know who are on expensive contracts are on them to get free upgrades to the latest fashionable phone... the old one gets traded in every six months or so).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty sure I do n't have * anything * that I use on that basis , does " renting " a house count ? Mobile phone - my property .
( was originally on a   20/month contract , but I had it for over a year and it then became my property ) Mobile phone SIM - my property.Mobile phone " contract " - Pay as you go / Prepaid.Mobile phone " phone number " - legal right to transfer , on demand , to any provider I like in my country.Mobile broadband dongle - my property .
( one-off payment of   25 to purchase the device outright from a high-street store ) Mobile broadband SIM - my property.Mobile broadband " contract " - Pay as you go / Prepaid.Mobile broadband " phone number " - legal right to transfer , on demand , to any provider I like in my country.All computer software ( including every game ) - " owned " ( irrevocable , perpetual license ) All computer hardware ( including every games console / handheld ) - my property.I do n't think we 're anywhere near * everything * being rented , but there are an awful lot of people out there who are willing to rent property .
Basically , if I could n't get the above on the terms I want , I would n't use them .
Mobile broadband passed me by until a cheap , PAYG dongle arrived on my high street ( and I 'm the most technical person I know , so people were always asking why I did n't have it ) .
My phone has been off contract for * YEARS * and I have no intention of going back .
I do n't pay monthly fees for anything else except things like gas , electric , water , tax , and that 's a " pay in advance " not " you 're only renting that water " system .
Probably house rent is the only true " you do n't own it , but pay me " system I 've used for any length of time and no-one * wants * to rent if there 's an option to buy.My mother , though , rented a television for 27 years until we showed her what it was costing ( i.e .
enough for a new TV every year ) .
Similarly , with renting a phone from a telecoms company for their landline - some people are * still * doing that because they think they have to .
It 's a case of getting something on a trial basis and then getting into the habit of paying it forever without noticing - only the naive people do it.Monthly fees are for * services * ( roadside breakdown assistance , insurance , etc .
) and for pre-paying bills conveniently ( gas , water , electric ) .
Anyone who does anything else probably does n't realise what it 's costing them and/or does n't care about owning the product ( mobile phone contract come to mind because most of the people I know who are on expensive contracts are on them to get free upgrades to the latest fashionable phone... the old one gets traded in every six months or so ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty sure I don't have *anything* that I use on that basis, does "renting" a house count?Mobile phone - my property.
(was originally on a £20/month contract, but I had it for over a year and it then became my property)Mobile phone SIM - my property.Mobile phone "contract" - Pay as you go / Prepaid.Mobile phone "phone number" - legal right to transfer, on demand, to any provider I like in my country.Mobile broadband dongle - my property.
(one-off payment of £25 to purchase the device outright from a high-street store)Mobile broadband SIM - my property.Mobile broadband "contract" - Pay as you go / Prepaid.Mobile broadband "phone number" - legal right to transfer, on demand, to any provider I like in my country.All computer software (including every game) - "owned" (irrevocable, perpetual license)All computer hardware (including every games console / handheld) - my property.I don't think we're anywhere near *everything* being rented, but there are an awful lot of people out there who are willing to rent property.
Basically, if I couldn't get the above on the terms I want, I wouldn't use them.
Mobile broadband passed me by until a cheap, PAYG dongle arrived on my high street (and I'm the most technical person I know, so people were always asking why I didn't have it).
My phone has been off contract for *YEARS* and I have no intention of going back.
I don't pay monthly fees for anything else except things like gas, electric, water, tax, and that's a "pay in advance" not "you're only renting that water" system.
Probably house rent is the only true "you don't own it, but pay me" system I've used for any length of time and no-one *wants* to rent if there's an option to buy.My mother, though, rented a television for 27 years until we showed her what it was costing (i.e.
enough for a new TV every year).
Similarly, with renting a phone from a telecoms company for their landline - some people are *still* doing that because they think they have to.
It's a case of getting something on a trial basis and then getting into the habit of paying it forever without noticing - only the naive people do it.Monthly fees are for *services* (roadside breakdown assistance, insurance, etc.
) and for pre-paying bills conveniently (gas, water, electric).
Anyone who does anything else probably doesn't realise what it's costing them and/or doesn't care about owning the product (mobile phone contract come to mind because most of the people I know who are on expensive contracts are on them to get free upgrades to the latest fashionable phone... the old one gets traded in every six months or so).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29805907</id>
	<title>Re:Small Monthly Fees, Get Used to It</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256042040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course I own my cellphone. What on earth are you talking about?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course I own my cellphone .
What on earth are you talking about ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course I own my cellphone.
What on earth are you talking about?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29808547</id>
	<title>Re:PS3..</title>
	<author>plague3106</author>
	<datestamp>1256055480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Why does everybody bring up the $100 wireless dongle for the 360? </i></p><p>B/c $100 is WAY too much money for a simple wireless card?</p><p><i>Someone invited something called a cable a long time ago, it links items together, it even comes with the damn thing.  I'm sure I'm not the only person who has the xbox very near the TV, which is also where my cable connection comes into the house, which is next to my damn modem/router. I don't need wireless when the router is sitting 2 feet from the system. Wireless is not the only why to access the internet, despite what starbucks tells you..</i></p><p>I'm sure you're not the only person, no.  But there are likely many for whom this ins't true, or perhaps they have their game systems elsewhere besides the living room (assuming cable even comes in from the living room).  While its not the only way to access the internet, its far more convient than trying to run cables everywhere.  So unlike your perception that people are simply too stupid to use wires, many people chose NOT to use wires, and for them its offensive that a $20 item is being priced at $100.</p><p><i> The system is not required to be online, so online connectivity/wi-fi is a null point.</i></p><p>However being online is one of the great values of BOTH systems.  So its not a null point, dispite your claims otherwise.</p><p><i>Blu-Ray, ok, point there. Then again, if you do have your system networked in any way, it can most likely stream from your computer, which can store the HD content, so Blu-Ray gets nulled out. </i></p><p>No, bluray continues to have a point in its favor, because its now the standard for HD disc based content, which many of us also still prefer.  I can easily bring my BD to someone elses house and play it, and I don't need the hastle of setting up a media server.  Even without a media server, its very useful to be online to purchase games, play them online, or use the web browsers built into both consoles.</p><p><i>Live has a fee of $55 a year, A YEAR, people with a $200-300 system that has new games costing $60, should not be allowed to bitch about a low cost fee that charged YEARLY. That's what, 3 outings to McD's for a family of 4, a weeks worth of starbucks every morning, or a night to the bar? Gaming is a hobby, hobbies incur cost. Check with a female family member about the cost of gardening or knitting or scrap booking, then complain about a one time a year fee that's fairly cheap.</i></p><p>That $55 / year is on top of all those other costs, and many people don't feel like they should have to pay $55 for the privledge of buying games online as well, or playing games already paid for.  This is a hold over from PC gaming... gamers expect the online servers to be included in the price of the game, not pay for them seperately.  The costs of other hobbies are irrelevent, but nice try at a strawman.</p><p><i>Really, the only winning point the PS3 has over 360 as a user cost standpoint is the ability to pop in just about any HD, which is a very nice point, which would be the only relevent point to the whole thread.</i></p><p>Oh and the free online play.  Oh and the fact that it plays bluray movies.  Oh and the fact that wireless is built in and thus very convient to use for web browsing, updating the system, oh and did I mention using that free online play?</p><p>Really, you sound like a fanboi.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does everybody bring up the $ 100 wireless dongle for the 360 ?
B/c $ 100 is WAY too much money for a simple wireless card ? Someone invited something called a cable a long time ago , it links items together , it even comes with the damn thing .
I 'm sure I 'm not the only person who has the xbox very near the TV , which is also where my cable connection comes into the house , which is next to my damn modem/router .
I do n't need wireless when the router is sitting 2 feet from the system .
Wireless is not the only why to access the internet , despite what starbucks tells you..I 'm sure you 're not the only person , no .
But there are likely many for whom this ins't true , or perhaps they have their game systems elsewhere besides the living room ( assuming cable even comes in from the living room ) .
While its not the only way to access the internet , its far more convient than trying to run cables everywhere .
So unlike your perception that people are simply too stupid to use wires , many people chose NOT to use wires , and for them its offensive that a $ 20 item is being priced at $ 100 .
The system is not required to be online , so online connectivity/wi-fi is a null point.However being online is one of the great values of BOTH systems .
So its not a null point , dispite your claims otherwise.Blu-Ray , ok , point there .
Then again , if you do have your system networked in any way , it can most likely stream from your computer , which can store the HD content , so Blu-Ray gets nulled out .
No , bluray continues to have a point in its favor , because its now the standard for HD disc based content , which many of us also still prefer .
I can easily bring my BD to someone elses house and play it , and I do n't need the hastle of setting up a media server .
Even without a media server , its very useful to be online to purchase games , play them online , or use the web browsers built into both consoles.Live has a fee of $ 55 a year , A YEAR , people with a $ 200-300 system that has new games costing $ 60 , should not be allowed to bitch about a low cost fee that charged YEARLY .
That 's what , 3 outings to McD 's for a family of 4 , a weeks worth of starbucks every morning , or a night to the bar ?
Gaming is a hobby , hobbies incur cost .
Check with a female family member about the cost of gardening or knitting or scrap booking , then complain about a one time a year fee that 's fairly cheap.That $ 55 / year is on top of all those other costs , and many people do n't feel like they should have to pay $ 55 for the privledge of buying games online as well , or playing games already paid for .
This is a hold over from PC gaming... gamers expect the online servers to be included in the price of the game , not pay for them seperately .
The costs of other hobbies are irrelevent , but nice try at a strawman.Really , the only winning point the PS3 has over 360 as a user cost standpoint is the ability to pop in just about any HD , which is a very nice point , which would be the only relevent point to the whole thread.Oh and the free online play .
Oh and the fact that it plays bluray movies .
Oh and the fact that wireless is built in and thus very convient to use for web browsing , updating the system , oh and did I mention using that free online play ? Really , you sound like a fanboi .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does everybody bring up the $100 wireless dongle for the 360?
B/c $100 is WAY too much money for a simple wireless card?Someone invited something called a cable a long time ago, it links items together, it even comes with the damn thing.
I'm sure I'm not the only person who has the xbox very near the TV, which is also where my cable connection comes into the house, which is next to my damn modem/router.
I don't need wireless when the router is sitting 2 feet from the system.
Wireless is not the only why to access the internet, despite what starbucks tells you..I'm sure you're not the only person, no.
But there are likely many for whom this ins't true, or perhaps they have their game systems elsewhere besides the living room (assuming cable even comes in from the living room).
While its not the only way to access the internet, its far more convient than trying to run cables everywhere.
So unlike your perception that people are simply too stupid to use wires, many people chose NOT to use wires, and for them its offensive that a $20 item is being priced at $100.
The system is not required to be online, so online connectivity/wi-fi is a null point.However being online is one of the great values of BOTH systems.
So its not a null point, dispite your claims otherwise.Blu-Ray, ok, point there.
Then again, if you do have your system networked in any way, it can most likely stream from your computer, which can store the HD content, so Blu-Ray gets nulled out.
No, bluray continues to have a point in its favor, because its now the standard for HD disc based content, which many of us also still prefer.
I can easily bring my BD to someone elses house and play it, and I don't need the hastle of setting up a media server.
Even without a media server, its very useful to be online to purchase games, play them online, or use the web browsers built into both consoles.Live has a fee of $55 a year, A YEAR, people with a $200-300 system that has new games costing $60, should not be allowed to bitch about a low cost fee that charged YEARLY.
That's what, 3 outings to McD's for a family of 4, a weeks worth of starbucks every morning, or a night to the bar?
Gaming is a hobby, hobbies incur cost.
Check with a female family member about the cost of gardening or knitting or scrap booking, then complain about a one time a year fee that's fairly cheap.That $55 / year is on top of all those other costs, and many people don't feel like they should have to pay $55 for the privledge of buying games online as well, or playing games already paid for.
This is a hold over from PC gaming... gamers expect the online servers to be included in the price of the game, not pay for them seperately.
The costs of other hobbies are irrelevent, but nice try at a strawman.Really, the only winning point the PS3 has over 360 as a user cost standpoint is the ability to pop in just about any HD, which is a very nice point, which would be the only relevent point to the whole thread.Oh and the free online play.
Oh and the fact that it plays bluray movies.
Oh and the fact that wireless is built in and thus very convient to use for web browsing, updating the system, oh and did I mention using that free online play?Really, you sound like a fanboi.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799483</id>
	<title>Re:Or 120GB for $54.99</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1255944300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't that exactly what they're doing here? Locking out unauthorized storage.</p><p>For that matter I dont know why anyone would buy the Arcade version. If you're already putting that kind of money for it, you might just put the little extra and get the version that has all the features. (and before someone starts ranting about "you shouldn't pay for extra features", look at it the other way around - the best version is the standard version, if you get anything below it you dont get all the features)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't that exactly what they 're doing here ?
Locking out unauthorized storage.For that matter I dont know why anyone would buy the Arcade version .
If you 're already putting that kind of money for it , you might just put the little extra and get the version that has all the features .
( and before someone starts ranting about " you should n't pay for extra features " , look at it the other way around - the best version is the standard version , if you get anything below it you dont get all the features )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't that exactly what they're doing here?
Locking out unauthorized storage.For that matter I dont know why anyone would buy the Arcade version.
If you're already putting that kind of money for it, you might just put the little extra and get the version that has all the features.
(and before someone starts ranting about "you shouldn't pay for extra features", look at it the other way around - the best version is the standard version, if you get anything below it you dont get all the features)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29809567</id>
	<title>Re:Small Monthly Fees, Get Used to It</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256058540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dunno what you're talking about, but <b> <i>I</i> </b> own my cellphone outright.</p><p>The data on it can be read with a $2 adapter imported from China.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dunno what you 're talking about , but I own my cellphone outright.The data on it can be read with a $ 2 adapter imported from China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dunno what you're talking about, but  I  own my cellphone outright.The data on it can be read with a $2 adapter imported from China.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801409</id>
	<title>Re:This will kill them</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255953120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This will have a HUGE effect on the 360 vrs PS3 issue.  I can tell you EXACTLY how much too!</p><p>Wait for it.</p><p>Wait for it.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....  oh wait nothing seems to be happening....</p><p>and it never will.  This is so completly trivial to the gaming market that exactly zero percentage of people will make there decision on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This will have a HUGE effect on the 360 vrs PS3 issue .
I can tell you EXACTLY how much too ! Wait for it.Wait for it .
.... oh wait nothing seems to be happening....and it never will .
This is so completly trivial to the gaming market that exactly zero percentage of people will make there decision on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will have a HUGE effect on the 360 vrs PS3 issue.
I can tell you EXACTLY how much too!Wait for it.Wait for it.
....  oh wait nothing seems to be happening....and it never will.
This is so completly trivial to the gaming market that exactly zero percentage of people will make there decision on it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800011</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29810437</id>
	<title>Re:Or 120GB for $54.99</title>
	<author>Coren22</author>
	<datestamp>1256061360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The controllers are much more high tech though.  Most game controllers are wireless now, and they have more electronics packed into them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The controllers are much more high tech though .
Most game controllers are wireless now , and they have more electronics packed into them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The controllers are much more high tech though.
Most game controllers are wireless now, and they have more electronics packed into them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29811891</id>
	<title>Re:PCs still work the same</title>
	<author>danomac</author>
	<datestamp>1256066340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>PC Gamers aren't exactly in the clear either. Had a friend ask me why he couldn't burn a CD and it turned out to be some crapware DRM that was installed with one of the games. Solution: Reinstall Windows.<br> <br>

At least you know you have a restricted device with consoles rather than finding out some shitty company decided to render your general-purpose computer useless...</htmltext>
<tokenext>PC Gamers are n't exactly in the clear either .
Had a friend ask me why he could n't burn a CD and it turned out to be some crapware DRM that was installed with one of the games .
Solution : Reinstall Windows .
At least you know you have a restricted device with consoles rather than finding out some shitty company decided to render your general-purpose computer useless.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PC Gamers aren't exactly in the clear either.
Had a friend ask me why he couldn't burn a CD and it turned out to be some crapware DRM that was installed with one of the games.
Solution: Reinstall Windows.
At least you know you have a restricted device with consoles rather than finding out some shitty company decided to render your general-purpose computer useless...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800083</id>
	<title>Small Monthly Fees, Get Used to It</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255946700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the wave of the future with all devices.</p><p>You don't need to upgrade it yourself, let Microsoft give you storage, for a "small monthly fee".</p><p>Next will be, you don't need to "own" a PC, or software, rent it, for a couple of "small monthly fees"</p><p>Let someone else manage your data, for a small monthly fee.<br>Let someone else update your programs, for a small monthly fee.<br>Let someone else manage the hardware, for a small monthly fee.</p><p>You will pay your "small monthly fees" and you will get NO WARRANTY, NO FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NO RECOURSE, NO REFUNDS, and NO SECURITY.</p><p>Most of the caps text is taken from the license agreement from most 'online only' software.</p><p>Think it won't work? It already does.</p><p>You don't "own" your cellphone, SIM card, or it's data. You simply rent it, for a "small monthly fee".</p><p>Good luck selling any of it, getting a decent warranty, or being able to cancel your contract.</p><p>Small Monthly Fees, get used to paying them , for everything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the wave of the future with all devices.You do n't need to upgrade it yourself , let Microsoft give you storage , for a " small monthly fee " .Next will be , you do n't need to " own " a PC , or software , rent it , for a couple of " small monthly fees " Let someone else manage your data , for a small monthly fee.Let someone else update your programs , for a small monthly fee.Let someone else manage the hardware , for a small monthly fee.You will pay your " small monthly fees " and you will get NO WARRANTY , NO FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE , NO RECOURSE , NO REFUNDS , and NO SECURITY.Most of the caps text is taken from the license agreement from most 'online only ' software.Think it wo n't work ?
It already does.You do n't " own " your cellphone , SIM card , or it 's data .
You simply rent it , for a " small monthly fee " .Good luck selling any of it , getting a decent warranty , or being able to cancel your contract.Small Monthly Fees , get used to paying them , for everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the wave of the future with all devices.You don't need to upgrade it yourself, let Microsoft give you storage, for a "small monthly fee".Next will be, you don't need to "own" a PC, or software, rent it, for a couple of "small monthly fees"Let someone else manage your data, for a small monthly fee.Let someone else update your programs, for a small monthly fee.Let someone else manage the hardware, for a small monthly fee.You will pay your "small monthly fees" and you will get NO WARRANTY, NO FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NO RECOURSE, NO REFUNDS, and NO SECURITY.Most of the caps text is taken from the license agreement from most 'online only' software.Think it won't work?
It already does.You don't "own" your cellphone, SIM card, or it's data.
You simply rent it, for a "small monthly fee".Good luck selling any of it, getting a decent warranty, or being able to cancel your contract.Small Monthly Fees, get used to paying them , for everything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800439</id>
	<title>PCs still work the same</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255948200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>With the huge failure rate (I read one time it was close to \%54 red ring of death for the xbox), and the constant vendor lock-in feature removal I am glad I have stayed with the PC.  I know quite a few others that have given up on consoles and gone back to the PC (although some of them were because the gaming on a PC was better)</htmltext>
<tokenext>With the huge failure rate ( I read one time it was close to \ % 54 red ring of death for the xbox ) , and the constant vendor lock-in feature removal I am glad I have stayed with the PC .
I know quite a few others that have given up on consoles and gone back to the PC ( although some of them were because the gaming on a PC was better )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the huge failure rate (I read one time it was close to \%54 red ring of death for the xbox), and the constant vendor lock-in feature removal I am glad I have stayed with the PC.
I know quite a few others that have given up on consoles and gone back to the PC (although some of them were because the gaming on a PC was better)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802091</id>
	<title>Re:Small Monthly Fees, Get Used to It</title>
	<author>AnotherUsername</author>
	<datestamp>1255957080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You don't "own" your cellphone, SIM card, or it's data. You simply rent it, for a "small monthly fee".</p><p>Good luck selling any of it, getting a decent warranty, or being able to cancel your contract.</p></div><p>I *do* own my cell phone.  There is no SIM card, so I can't make an argument there.  The data?  Phone numbers, of which my local Radio Shack has a backup of, so whenever I get a new phone, all they have to do is plug in the new phone to their computer, and it immediately uploads everything.  As far as paying for it? Well, since I have bought all but one of my phones from them, they provide the service for free.  Even if it wasn't, I would be willing to pay for it, simply because it is much handier for me, in the event of my phone dying, to simply go to Radio Shack and have them reload my data(either on my phone or a new phone, depending on the event).
<br> <br>
I don't understand how you can say that I don't own my cell phone.  I can sell it on eBay(in fact, many friends only purchase their phones via eBay, due to pricing of used vs. new), and I can unlock it and use it on another network.  I can pretty much do whatever I want with it.  How do I not own it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't " own " your cellphone , SIM card , or it 's data .
You simply rent it , for a " small monthly fee " .Good luck selling any of it , getting a decent warranty , or being able to cancel your contract.I * do * own my cell phone .
There is no SIM card , so I ca n't make an argument there .
The data ?
Phone numbers , of which my local Radio Shack has a backup of , so whenever I get a new phone , all they have to do is plug in the new phone to their computer , and it immediately uploads everything .
As far as paying for it ?
Well , since I have bought all but one of my phones from them , they provide the service for free .
Even if it was n't , I would be willing to pay for it , simply because it is much handier for me , in the event of my phone dying , to simply go to Radio Shack and have them reload my data ( either on my phone or a new phone , depending on the event ) .
I do n't understand how you can say that I do n't own my cell phone .
I can sell it on eBay ( in fact , many friends only purchase their phones via eBay , due to pricing of used vs. new ) , and I can unlock it and use it on another network .
I can pretty much do whatever I want with it .
How do I not own it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't "own" your cellphone, SIM card, or it's data.
You simply rent it, for a "small monthly fee".Good luck selling any of it, getting a decent warranty, or being able to cancel your contract.I *do* own my cell phone.
There is no SIM card, so I can't make an argument there.
The data?
Phone numbers, of which my local Radio Shack has a backup of, so whenever I get a new phone, all they have to do is plug in the new phone to their computer, and it immediately uploads everything.
As far as paying for it?
Well, since I have bought all but one of my phones from them, they provide the service for free.
Even if it wasn't, I would be willing to pay for it, simply because it is much handier for me, in the event of my phone dying, to simply go to Radio Shack and have them reload my data(either on my phone or a new phone, depending on the event).
I don't understand how you can say that I don't own my cell phone.
I can sell it on eBay(in fact, many friends only purchase their phones via eBay, due to pricing of used vs. new), and I can unlock it and use it on another network.
I can pretty much do whatever I want with it.
How do I not own it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800793</id>
	<title>Re:Audacious.</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1255949820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I find Microsoft's willingness to squeeze for storage interesting in two respects: One, it suggests a very high level of optimism about their position in the market. Two, it suggests that they don't much care about, or aren't making much money from, downloadable offerings for the Xbox(or that they view those offerings as being extremely compelling and likely to drive consumer behavior).</p></div><p>Agreed. I find their position pretty much inexplicable. Purchased games can eat up a gig or two easily. Install a DVD-based game on the HDD for faster access? Gigs and gigs are lost. My version has the 20gb drive. How exactly do they expect me to download HD movies, even if they're self-deleting rentals? There's just no space left. And I can't save games onto non-registered memory, nonono. The only thing my USB stick is good for is throwing on content I want to view, but only if it's encoded in a format Xbox will accept.</p><p>The whole understanding of Microsoft's strategy back in the days of the first Xbox is that video games were the entry point for becoming the media portal in the living room. You start with games, then include the player for physical media (DVD replacements being on the horizon at the time), then eventually get the streaming media and it's Xbox for everything connected to the TV a decade down the line. Games, movies, TV shows, music, digital distribution of all of it, plus it's your living room internet portal, they were going to have it sewn up. Well, if that's the idea, why the hell weren't they giving away gigantic drives with the 360? Subsidize the shit out of it, you want people downloading stuff! But that didn't happen. They've got a nice albeit overpriced storefront chock full of things to download and there's just not enough room to do much with it. Fail? I think so.</p><p>Back when Tomb Raider 1 came out people were saying "Wow, for the price of just the graphics card to play this on my PC I could get a Playstation. No-brainer, man." And for quite some time this really was the truth of it. Well, for the price of what it takes to have a tricked out 360, you could get a gaming machine! Sure, not something completely insane and overpriced like Alienware but certainly something that's open-architecture with less bullshit. I picked up a 360 with the intention of just playing games on it, not looking to do anything more but I've actually gotten annoyed seeing all the things they could be doing with it but have failed at. None of that stuff fit their business model it seems.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find Microsoft 's willingness to squeeze for storage interesting in two respects : One , it suggests a very high level of optimism about their position in the market .
Two , it suggests that they do n't much care about , or are n't making much money from , downloadable offerings for the Xbox ( or that they view those offerings as being extremely compelling and likely to drive consumer behavior ) .Agreed .
I find their position pretty much inexplicable .
Purchased games can eat up a gig or two easily .
Install a DVD-based game on the HDD for faster access ?
Gigs and gigs are lost .
My version has the 20gb drive .
How exactly do they expect me to download HD movies , even if they 're self-deleting rentals ?
There 's just no space left .
And I ca n't save games onto non-registered memory , nonono .
The only thing my USB stick is good for is throwing on content I want to view , but only if it 's encoded in a format Xbox will accept.The whole understanding of Microsoft 's strategy back in the days of the first Xbox is that video games were the entry point for becoming the media portal in the living room .
You start with games , then include the player for physical media ( DVD replacements being on the horizon at the time ) , then eventually get the streaming media and it 's Xbox for everything connected to the TV a decade down the line .
Games , movies , TV shows , music , digital distribution of all of it , plus it 's your living room internet portal , they were going to have it sewn up .
Well , if that 's the idea , why the hell were n't they giving away gigantic drives with the 360 ?
Subsidize the shit out of it , you want people downloading stuff !
But that did n't happen .
They 've got a nice albeit overpriced storefront chock full of things to download and there 's just not enough room to do much with it .
Fail ? I think so.Back when Tomb Raider 1 came out people were saying " Wow , for the price of just the graphics card to play this on my PC I could get a Playstation .
No-brainer , man .
" And for quite some time this really was the truth of it .
Well , for the price of what it takes to have a tricked out 360 , you could get a gaming machine !
Sure , not something completely insane and overpriced like Alienware but certainly something that 's open-architecture with less bullshit .
I picked up a 360 with the intention of just playing games on it , not looking to do anything more but I 've actually gotten annoyed seeing all the things they could be doing with it but have failed at .
None of that stuff fit their business model it seems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find Microsoft's willingness to squeeze for storage interesting in two respects: One, it suggests a very high level of optimism about their position in the market.
Two, it suggests that they don't much care about, or aren't making much money from, downloadable offerings for the Xbox(or that they view those offerings as being extremely compelling and likely to drive consumer behavior).Agreed.
I find their position pretty much inexplicable.
Purchased games can eat up a gig or two easily.
Install a DVD-based game on the HDD for faster access?
Gigs and gigs are lost.
My version has the 20gb drive.
How exactly do they expect me to download HD movies, even if they're self-deleting rentals?
There's just no space left.
And I can't save games onto non-registered memory, nonono.
The only thing my USB stick is good for is throwing on content I want to view, but only if it's encoded in a format Xbox will accept.The whole understanding of Microsoft's strategy back in the days of the first Xbox is that video games were the entry point for becoming the media portal in the living room.
You start with games, then include the player for physical media (DVD replacements being on the horizon at the time), then eventually get the streaming media and it's Xbox for everything connected to the TV a decade down the line.
Games, movies, TV shows, music, digital distribution of all of it, plus it's your living room internet portal, they were going to have it sewn up.
Well, if that's the idea, why the hell weren't they giving away gigantic drives with the 360?
Subsidize the shit out of it, you want people downloading stuff!
But that didn't happen.
They've got a nice albeit overpriced storefront chock full of things to download and there's just not enough room to do much with it.
Fail? I think so.Back when Tomb Raider 1 came out people were saying "Wow, for the price of just the graphics card to play this on my PC I could get a Playstation.
No-brainer, man.
" And for quite some time this really was the truth of it.
Well, for the price of what it takes to have a tricked out 360, you could get a gaming machine!
Sure, not something completely insane and overpriced like Alienware but certainly something that's open-architecture with less bullshit.
I picked up a 360 with the intention of just playing games on it, not looking to do anything more but I've actually gotten annoyed seeing all the things they could be doing with it but have failed at.
None of that stuff fit their business model it seems.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802971</id>
	<title>Re:This will kill them</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255963080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This will kill them in the battle against the PS3. Sony make it so easy, for a start every PS3 comes with a hard drive, so games developers can assume that there is bulk persistent storage there and take advantage of it.</i></p><p>Yeah, just pray you don't have a small hard drive PS3 like the original 20 GB launch system and don't download any movies, videos, music, user made content or Playstation Home.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This will kill them in the battle against the PS3 .
Sony make it so easy , for a start every PS3 comes with a hard drive , so games developers can assume that there is bulk persistent storage there and take advantage of it.Yeah , just pray you do n't have a small hard drive PS3 like the original 20 GB launch system and do n't download any movies , videos , music , user made content or Playstation Home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will kill them in the battle against the PS3.
Sony make it so easy, for a start every PS3 comes with a hard drive, so games developers can assume that there is bulk persistent storage there and take advantage of it.Yeah, just pray you don't have a small hard drive PS3 like the original 20 GB launch system and don't download any movies, videos, music, user made content or Playstation Home.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800011</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799955</id>
	<title>Needles and pins</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255946040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i luke turtles</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i luke turtles</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i luke turtles</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799869</id>
	<title>And the slant comes out</title>
	<author>OverlordQ</author>
	<datestamp>1255945620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But Apple blocking the Pre from working with iTunes isn't bad?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But Apple blocking the Pre from working with iTunes is n't bad ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But Apple blocking the Pre from working with iTunes isn't bad?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801589</id>
	<title>Re:Audacious.</title>
	<author>DdJ</author>
	<datestamp>1255954080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I find Microsoft's willingness to squeeze for storage interesting in two respects: One, it suggests a very high level of optimism about their position in the market. Two, it suggests that they don't much care about, or aren't making much money from, downloadable offerings for the Xbox(or that they view those offerings as being extremely compelling and likely to drive consumer behavior).</p></div></blockquote><p>See, I think the exact opposite.</p><p>I think they see downloadable offerings as almost their entire future, and I think this activity is not centered around squeezing people for storage, but about maintaining <em>control</em> over storage options, to make sure every storage option has DRM support deep in their bones.</p><p>Microsoft <em>does</em> want everyone to have humungous hard drives.  They just want to make sure that those hard drives are <em>theirs</em>, so they can build DRM into the storage at multiple levels, to prevent piracy of the downloaded content.  Otherwise the level of piracy might approach that on the PC, and, well, better to go out of business than to tolerate that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find Microsoft 's willingness to squeeze for storage interesting in two respects : One , it suggests a very high level of optimism about their position in the market .
Two , it suggests that they do n't much care about , or are n't making much money from , downloadable offerings for the Xbox ( or that they view those offerings as being extremely compelling and likely to drive consumer behavior ) .See , I think the exact opposite.I think they see downloadable offerings as almost their entire future , and I think this activity is not centered around squeezing people for storage , but about maintaining control over storage options , to make sure every storage option has DRM support deep in their bones.Microsoft does want everyone to have humungous hard drives .
They just want to make sure that those hard drives are theirs , so they can build DRM into the storage at multiple levels , to prevent piracy of the downloaded content .
Otherwise the level of piracy might approach that on the PC , and , well , better to go out of business than to tolerate that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find Microsoft's willingness to squeeze for storage interesting in two respects: One, it suggests a very high level of optimism about their position in the market.
Two, it suggests that they don't much care about, or aren't making much money from, downloadable offerings for the Xbox(or that they view those offerings as being extremely compelling and likely to drive consumer behavior).See, I think the exact opposite.I think they see downloadable offerings as almost their entire future, and I think this activity is not centered around squeezing people for storage, but about maintaining control over storage options, to make sure every storage option has DRM support deep in their bones.Microsoft does want everyone to have humungous hard drives.
They just want to make sure that those hard drives are theirs, so they can build DRM into the storage at multiple levels, to prevent piracy of the downloaded content.
Otherwise the level of piracy might approach that on the PC, and, well, better to go out of business than to tolerate that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800371</id>
	<title>Re:Trash the X-box ... Starcraft 2 will be here so</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255947900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm still waiting for AMD to create their own console. They can build all the expensive parts in-house, except for an optical drive.</p><p>But the fact that the Linux graphics and sound stacks are nowhere near complete and stable disillusions me regarding the feasibility of using it as a console OS. Neither users nor developers like their consoles stuttering, hanging or crashing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm still waiting for AMD to create their own console .
They can build all the expensive parts in-house , except for an optical drive.But the fact that the Linux graphics and sound stacks are nowhere near complete and stable disillusions me regarding the feasibility of using it as a console OS .
Neither users nor developers like their consoles stuttering , hanging or crashing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm still waiting for AMD to create their own console.
They can build all the expensive parts in-house, except for an optical drive.But the fact that the Linux graphics and sound stacks are nowhere near complete and stable disillusions me regarding the feasibility of using it as a console OS.
Neither users nor developers like their consoles stuttering, hanging or crashing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799411</id>
	<title>Or 120GB for $54.99</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255944000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... or more likely, pick up the $99.99 60GB Live Starter Pack for Xbox 360.</p></div><p>Or (in an even more likely scenario if you're reading Slashdot) you will <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/150970/upgrade\_your\_xbox\_360s\_hard\_drive\_on\_the\_cheap.html" title="pcworld.com">opt to do it yourself</a> [pcworld.com] to get twice that storage <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136373" title="newegg.com">for a little over half the cost</a> [newegg.com].  This is, of course, assuming that locking out "unauthorized storage" does not also target in some crazy way locking out hard drives.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... or more likely , pick up the $ 99.99 60GB Live Starter Pack for Xbox 360.Or ( in an even more likely scenario if you 're reading Slashdot ) you will opt to do it yourself [ pcworld.com ] to get twice that storage for a little over half the cost [ newegg.com ] .
This is , of course , assuming that locking out " unauthorized storage " does not also target in some crazy way locking out hard drives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... or more likely, pick up the $99.99 60GB Live Starter Pack for Xbox 360.Or (in an even more likely scenario if you're reading Slashdot) you will opt to do it yourself [pcworld.com] to get twice that storage for a little over half the cost [newegg.com].
This is, of course, assuming that locking out "unauthorized storage" does not also target in some crazy way locking out hard drives.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802493</id>
	<title>Re:Is is legal to remove functions after purchase?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255959420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>obviously you've never read the whole eula...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>obviously you 've never read the whole eula.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>obviously you've never read the whole eula...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800563</id>
	<title>Re:Is is legal to remove functions after purchase?</title>
	<author>JonathanBoyd</author>
	<datestamp>1255948860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When did Microsoft ever advertise that you could use any old hard drive or flash disk for storage? AFAIK, they've only ever advertised their own products and even told customers to only use their products. Given the lengths they've gone to to make it hard to use anything else, it should be fairly obvious that using anything else might just cause problems.</p><p>Also, when it comes to the legal questions, don't you think their lawyers who presumably gave the go ahead for this are somewhat better qualified than some random punter on Slashdot?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When did Microsoft ever advertise that you could use any old hard drive or flash disk for storage ?
AFAIK , they 've only ever advertised their own products and even told customers to only use their products .
Given the lengths they 've gone to to make it hard to use anything else , it should be fairly obvious that using anything else might just cause problems.Also , when it comes to the legal questions , do n't you think their lawyers who presumably gave the go ahead for this are somewhat better qualified than some random punter on Slashdot ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When did Microsoft ever advertise that you could use any old hard drive or flash disk for storage?
AFAIK, they've only ever advertised their own products and even told customers to only use their products.
Given the lengths they've gone to to make it hard to use anything else, it should be fairly obvious that using anything else might just cause problems.Also, when it comes to the legal questions, don't you think their lawyers who presumably gave the go ahead for this are somewhat better qualified than some random punter on Slashdot?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801883</id>
	<title>Re:PS3..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255955820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why does everybody bring up the $100 wireless dongle for the 360? Someone invited something called a cable a long time ago, it links items together, it even comes with the damn thing.<br>I'm sure I'm not the only person who has the xbox very near the TV, which is also where my cable connection comes into the house, which is next to my damn modem/router. I don't need wireless when the router is sitting 2 feet from the system. Wireless is not the only why to access the internet, despite what starbucks tells you..<br> Why don't you compare the $300 xbox with the $300 PS3? Both come with 120gig HD, null point. The system is not required to be online, so online connectivity/wi-fi is a null point. Blu-Ray, ok, point there. Then again, if you do have your system networked in any way, it can most likely stream from your computer, which can store the HD content, so Blu-Ray gets nulled out. <br>Live has a fee of $55 a year, A YEAR, people with a $200-300 system that has new games costing $60, should not be allowed to bitch about a low cost fee that charged YEARLY. That's what, 3 outings to McD's for a family of 4, a weeks worth of starbucks every morning, or a night to the bar? Gaming is a hobby, hobbies incur cost. Check with a female family member about the cost of gardening or knitting or scrap booking, then complain about a one time a year fee that's fairly cheap.<br> Really, the only winning point the PS3 has over 360 as a user cost standpoint is the ability to pop in just about any HD, which is a very nice point, which would be the only relevent point to the whole thread.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does everybody bring up the $ 100 wireless dongle for the 360 ?
Someone invited something called a cable a long time ago , it links items together , it even comes with the damn thing.I 'm sure I 'm not the only person who has the xbox very near the TV , which is also where my cable connection comes into the house , which is next to my damn modem/router .
I do n't need wireless when the router is sitting 2 feet from the system .
Wireless is not the only why to access the internet , despite what starbucks tells you.. Why do n't you compare the $ 300 xbox with the $ 300 PS3 ?
Both come with 120gig HD , null point .
The system is not required to be online , so online connectivity/wi-fi is a null point .
Blu-Ray , ok , point there .
Then again , if you do have your system networked in any way , it can most likely stream from your computer , which can store the HD content , so Blu-Ray gets nulled out .
Live has a fee of $ 55 a year , A YEAR , people with a $ 200-300 system that has new games costing $ 60 , should not be allowed to bitch about a low cost fee that charged YEARLY .
That 's what , 3 outings to McD 's for a family of 4 , a weeks worth of starbucks every morning , or a night to the bar ?
Gaming is a hobby , hobbies incur cost .
Check with a female family member about the cost of gardening or knitting or scrap booking , then complain about a one time a year fee that 's fairly cheap .
Really , the only winning point the PS3 has over 360 as a user cost standpoint is the ability to pop in just about any HD , which is a very nice point , which would be the only relevent point to the whole thread .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does everybody bring up the $100 wireless dongle for the 360?
Someone invited something called a cable a long time ago, it links items together, it even comes with the damn thing.I'm sure I'm not the only person who has the xbox very near the TV, which is also where my cable connection comes into the house, which is next to my damn modem/router.
I don't need wireless when the router is sitting 2 feet from the system.
Wireless is not the only why to access the internet, despite what starbucks tells you.. Why don't you compare the $300 xbox with the $300 PS3?
Both come with 120gig HD, null point.
The system is not required to be online, so online connectivity/wi-fi is a null point.
Blu-Ray, ok, point there.
Then again, if you do have your system networked in any way, it can most likely stream from your computer, which can store the HD content, so Blu-Ray gets nulled out.
Live has a fee of $55 a year, A YEAR, people with a $200-300 system that has new games costing $60, should not be allowed to bitch about a low cost fee that charged YEARLY.
That's what, 3 outings to McD's for a family of 4, a weeks worth of starbucks every morning, or a night to the bar?
Gaming is a hobby, hobbies incur cost.
Check with a female family member about the cost of gardening or knitting or scrap booking, then complain about a one time a year fee that's fairly cheap.
Really, the only winning point the PS3 has over 360 as a user cost standpoint is the ability to pop in just about any HD, which is a very nice point, which would be the only relevent point to the whole thread.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802427</id>
	<title>Re:Misinformation</title>
	<author>saleenS281</author>
	<datestamp>1255959120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Right... but as my buddy found out the hard way, you can have saves from approximately 3 games played the whole way through before it's so full you have to delete data off of it for the next xboxlive upgrade.
<br> <br>
So while I am an xbox360 fan, and own several, I agree you need more storage than the built-in to realistically use it.  Oh... and you can't play halo3 multiplayer co-op online without a hard drive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right... but as my buddy found out the hard way , you can have saves from approximately 3 games played the whole way through before it 's so full you have to delete data off of it for the next xboxlive upgrade .
So while I am an xbox360 fan , and own several , I agree you need more storage than the built-in to realistically use it .
Oh... and you ca n't play halo3 multiplayer co-op online without a hard drive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right... but as my buddy found out the hard way, you can have saves from approximately 3 games played the whole way through before it's so full you have to delete data off of it for the next xboxlive upgrade.
So while I am an xbox360 fan, and own several, I agree you need more storage than the built-in to realistically use it.
Oh... and you can't play halo3 multiplayer co-op online without a hard drive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800025</id>
	<title>Re:Anti-competitive</title>
	<author>Itninja</author>
	<datestamp>1255946460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nothing is being 'locked out' without the customer consent. While you may own the box, they own the online service. If you don't want to be updated, don't connect to the online service. That's certainly not required if all you want to do is play with friends on the same console.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing is being 'locked out ' without the customer consent .
While you may own the box , they own the online service .
If you do n't want to be updated , do n't connect to the online service .
That 's certainly not required if all you want to do is play with friends on the same console .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing is being 'locked out' without the customer consent.
While you may own the box, they own the online service.
If you don't want to be updated, don't connect to the online service.
That's certainly not required if all you want to do is play with friends on the same console.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29803653</id>
	<title>Stop whining</title>
	<author>ndik</author>
	<datestamp>1255968480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Stick with a PC. They're versatile: Upgradeable AND modifiable!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stick with a PC .
They 're versatile : Upgradeable AND modifiable !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stick with a PC.
They're versatile: Upgradeable AND modifiable!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799897</id>
	<title>PS3</title>
	<author>toastar</author>
	<datestamp>1255945800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd Like to point out that you can upgrade the PS3 Hard Drive, and still keep your warranty.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd Like to point out that you can upgrade the PS3 Hard Drive , and still keep your warranty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd Like to point out that you can upgrade the PS3 Hard Drive, and still keep your warranty.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801073</id>
	<title>Re:Small Monthly Fees, Get Used to It</title>
	<author>Renraku</author>
	<datestamp>1255951380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People don't put adequate weight on things, depending on when they're going to happen.  A monthly fee of $20, to many many people, is much better than a one time fee of $40, which has to be paid right now.  Also, a one-year-deferred-payment living room set for $1000 is much better than a pay-now version of the same set for $500.  It's one of the reasons the loan industry has collapsed.</p><p>Mowing the yard today is 10x worse than mowing the yard in a week.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People do n't put adequate weight on things , depending on when they 're going to happen .
A monthly fee of $ 20 , to many many people , is much better than a one time fee of $ 40 , which has to be paid right now .
Also , a one-year-deferred-payment living room set for $ 1000 is much better than a pay-now version of the same set for $ 500 .
It 's one of the reasons the loan industry has collapsed.Mowing the yard today is 10x worse than mowing the yard in a week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People don't put adequate weight on things, depending on when they're going to happen.
A monthly fee of $20, to many many people, is much better than a one time fee of $40, which has to be paid right now.
Also, a one-year-deferred-payment living room set for $1000 is much better than a pay-now version of the same set for $500.
It's one of the reasons the loan industry has collapsed.Mowing the yard today is 10x worse than mowing the yard in a week.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29804911</id>
	<title>Here we go again</title>
	<author>keraneuology</author>
	<datestamp>1256071140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>See United States v IBM, 1936, USSC ruled that it was a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act for IBM to require the use of IBM brand punch cards in their machines.  Exact same thing here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>See United States v IBM , 1936 , USSC ruled that it was a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act for IBM to require the use of IBM brand punch cards in their machines .
Exact same thing here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See United States v IBM, 1936, USSC ruled that it was a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act for IBM to require the use of IBM brand punch cards in their machines.
Exact same thing here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29809495</id>
	<title>Re:This will kill them</title>
	<author>DrNASA</author>
	<datestamp>1256058300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wrong - this may kill them in the homebrew or modding market, but MS was fairly efficient in limiting those activities to begin with on the 360.
<br> <br>
The only important differentiators for single system buyers is the games available. Do they have the game(s) I want to play (and online with friends)
<br> <br>
Storage is not a big deal and most new buyers wont even notice because the products will shortly fall of the shelf - which raises a more interesting question - will this actually end up happening or will Wal-Mart and the like leverage their ample weight against MS and cry foul because of now unsellable inventory?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong - this may kill them in the homebrew or modding market , but MS was fairly efficient in limiting those activities to begin with on the 360 .
The only important differentiators for single system buyers is the games available .
Do they have the game ( s ) I want to play ( and online with friends ) Storage is not a big deal and most new buyers wont even notice because the products will shortly fall of the shelf - which raises a more interesting question - will this actually end up happening or will Wal-Mart and the like leverage their ample weight against MS and cry foul because of now unsellable inventory ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong - this may kill them in the homebrew or modding market, but MS was fairly efficient in limiting those activities to begin with on the 360.
The only important differentiators for single system buyers is the games available.
Do they have the game(s) I want to play (and online with friends)
 
Storage is not a big deal and most new buyers wont even notice because the products will shortly fall of the shelf - which raises a more interesting question - will this actually end up happening or will Wal-Mart and the like leverage their ample weight against MS and cry foul because of now unsellable inventory?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800011</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800039</id>
	<title>Just when I was yet again considering an Xbox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255946520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not a modder or hacker or care to use third party hardware but I don't like getting my cage rattled every time I turn around. It seems like they time it brilliantly so every time I weaken and consider getting an Xbox I get reminded why I avoided them. Between hardware issues, HD falling on it's face, update issues and Microsoft's patented wild hairs up their asses I live in fear of the things. Ever consider releasing a gamebox that works and not fuck with it? I know you would have had my business years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a modder or hacker or care to use third party hardware but I do n't like getting my cage rattled every time I turn around .
It seems like they time it brilliantly so every time I weaken and consider getting an Xbox I get reminded why I avoided them .
Between hardware issues , HD falling on it 's face , update issues and Microsoft 's patented wild hairs up their asses I live in fear of the things .
Ever consider releasing a gamebox that works and not fuck with it ?
I know you would have had my business years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a modder or hacker or care to use third party hardware but I don't like getting my cage rattled every time I turn around.
It seems like they time it brilliantly so every time I weaken and consider getting an Xbox I get reminded why I avoided them.
Between hardware issues, HD falling on it's face, update issues and Microsoft's patented wild hairs up their asses I live in fear of the things.
Ever consider releasing a gamebox that works and not fuck with it?
I know you would have had my business years ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29804421</id>
	<title>Biased summary?</title>
	<author>MBGMorden</author>
	<datestamp>1255977540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Arcade bundle has always included a memory unit, yet they act as if it's yet another option for MS to milk you on.  I've later upgrade to a hard drive, but I played my 360 for a long time with just the memory card that came with my Arcade bundle it it worked fine for save-games and the like.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Arcade bundle has always included a memory unit , yet they act as if it 's yet another option for MS to milk you on .
I 've later upgrade to a hard drive , but I played my 360 for a long time with just the memory card that came with my Arcade bundle it it worked fine for save-games and the like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Arcade bundle has always included a memory unit, yet they act as if it's yet another option for MS to milk you on.
I've later upgrade to a hard drive, but I played my 360 for a long time with just the memory card that came with my Arcade bundle it it worked fine for save-games and the like.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29803167</id>
	<title>Re:The Pre could have used supported APIs.</title>
	<author>jklovanc</author>
	<datestamp>1255964460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny how people can get things wrong.<br>When the Pre came out it could sync with iTunes with no problem.<br>As of  iTunes update 8.2.1 the sync program checked to see if the device was an Apple product by checking it manufacturer ID. Since the Pre used its own ID it could not sync.<br>Pre then changed to use the Apple ID so it could sync.</p><p>Apple did exactly the same thing that Microsoft is doing now; Pre just works around it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny how people can get things wrong.When the Pre came out it could sync with iTunes with no problem.As of iTunes update 8.2.1 the sync program checked to see if the device was an Apple product by checking it manufacturer ID .
Since the Pre used its own ID it could not sync.Pre then changed to use the Apple ID so it could sync.Apple did exactly the same thing that Microsoft is doing now ; Pre just works around it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny how people can get things wrong.When the Pre came out it could sync with iTunes with no problem.As of  iTunes update 8.2.1 the sync program checked to see if the device was an Apple product by checking it manufacturer ID.
Since the Pre used its own ID it could not sync.Pre then changed to use the Apple ID so it could sync.Apple did exactly the same thing that Microsoft is doing now; Pre just works around it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29805673</id>
	<title>Re:This will kill them</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256038980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why would this kill them now when this move simply maintains the same situation they've been in for 4 years.  You've been able to buy 3rd party storage for the PS3 from day 1 and you've been locked into MS storage on the 360 from day 1.  Nothings changed other than slapping down a competitor that tried to get into what MS considers it's turf.<br> <br>
Maybe Sony will close the gap between the install bases of the two systems, but this won't even be a major reason for it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would this kill them now when this move simply maintains the same situation they 've been in for 4 years .
You 've been able to buy 3rd party storage for the PS3 from day 1 and you 've been locked into MS storage on the 360 from day 1 .
Nothings changed other than slapping down a competitor that tried to get into what MS considers it 's turf .
Maybe Sony will close the gap between the install bases of the two systems , but this wo n't even be a major reason for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would this kill them now when this move simply maintains the same situation they've been in for 4 years.
You've been able to buy 3rd party storage for the PS3 from day 1 and you've been locked into MS storage on the 360 from day 1.
Nothings changed other than slapping down a competitor that tried to get into what MS considers it's turf.
Maybe Sony will close the gap between the install bases of the two systems, but this won't even be a major reason for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800011</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29828903</id>
	<title>Re:Anti-competitive</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1256120460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In future, games will come with the new software version and force you to update before you can play them... You're not using a service, you're just trying to play a game which is why you bought the console in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In future , games will come with the new software version and force you to update before you can play them... You 're not using a service , you 're just trying to play a game which is why you bought the console in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In future, games will come with the new software version and force you to update before you can play them... You're not using a service, you're just trying to play a game which is why you bought the console in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801799</id>
	<title>Re:Is is legal to remove functions after purchase?</title>
	<author>Nekomusume</author>
	<datestamp>1255955220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There IS a certain similarity to "bait and switch", which is illegal... but likely not quite close enough to nail them on it.</p><p>And they've probably got their butts covered 99 ways from sunday in the small print of their EULAs, TOSs, etc. Admitadly, nobody really knows how legal the courts will consider those to be if they come directly under challenge, but who has the money to enter into a lawsuit with one of the world's richest megacorps just to find out?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There IS a certain similarity to " bait and switch " , which is illegal... but likely not quite close enough to nail them on it.And they 've probably got their butts covered 99 ways from sunday in the small print of their EULAs , TOSs , etc .
Admitadly , nobody really knows how legal the courts will consider those to be if they come directly under challenge , but who has the money to enter into a lawsuit with one of the world 's richest megacorps just to find out ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There IS a certain similarity to "bait and switch", which is illegal... but likely not quite close enough to nail them on it.And they've probably got their butts covered 99 ways from sunday in the small print of their EULAs, TOSs, etc.
Admitadly, nobody really knows how legal the courts will consider those to be if they come directly under challenge, but who has the money to enter into a lawsuit with one of the world's richest megacorps just to find out?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29844477</id>
	<title>Re:Small Monthly Fees, Get Used to It</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256302740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I own my cellphone, SIM card and all of the data on both.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I own my cellphone , SIM card and all of the data on both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I own my cellphone, SIM card and all of the data on both.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800221</id>
	<title>Re:And the slant comes out</title>
	<author>Penguinisto</author>
	<datestamp>1255947240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Point of Order: Apple blocked the Pre from falsifying its USB device address/ID to get that compatibility.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Point of Order : Apple blocked the Pre from falsifying its USB device address/ID to get that compatibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Point of Order: Apple blocked the Pre from falsifying its USB device address/ID to get that compatibility.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799869</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802489</id>
	<title>Re:Small Monthly Fees, Get Used to It</title>
	<author>saleenS281</author>
	<datestamp>1255959360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sure I'll get modded down, but don't blame the manufacturers, blame the stock market that encourages this.  The way our "open economy" is set up today, it is in a companies best interests to be able to tell wall street EXACTLY what they're going to make the next quarter.  Relying on outright sales is rough, and tough to forecast.  Having a known monthly income makes it much, much easier.  Personally, I'd prefer the stock market go away all together, and companies stay private.  From what I've seen, the only people who truly have anything to gain from "going public" are the founders/initial employees who own stock.  From there on out, it's all downhill.  I'd much prefer companies function without the monkey of "the street" on their backs every quarter so they could more easily make decisions that are better for their long term health, even if it hurts their short-term quarterly numbers.  And hell, if your business model is proven, you can still sell the whole company to another entity when you're done with it to make your bag of cash<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure I 'll get modded down , but do n't blame the manufacturers , blame the stock market that encourages this .
The way our " open economy " is set up today , it is in a companies best interests to be able to tell wall street EXACTLY what they 're going to make the next quarter .
Relying on outright sales is rough , and tough to forecast .
Having a known monthly income makes it much , much easier .
Personally , I 'd prefer the stock market go away all together , and companies stay private .
From what I 've seen , the only people who truly have anything to gain from " going public " are the founders/initial employees who own stock .
From there on out , it 's all downhill .
I 'd much prefer companies function without the monkey of " the street " on their backs every quarter so they could more easily make decisions that are better for their long term health , even if it hurts their short-term quarterly numbers .
And hell , if your business model is proven , you can still sell the whole company to another entity when you 're done with it to make your bag of cash ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure I'll get modded down, but don't blame the manufacturers, blame the stock market that encourages this.
The way our "open economy" is set up today, it is in a companies best interests to be able to tell wall street EXACTLY what they're going to make the next quarter.
Relying on outright sales is rough, and tough to forecast.
Having a known monthly income makes it much, much easier.
Personally, I'd prefer the stock market go away all together, and companies stay private.
From what I've seen, the only people who truly have anything to gain from "going public" are the founders/initial employees who own stock.
From there on out, it's all downhill.
I'd much prefer companies function without the monkey of "the street" on their backs every quarter so they could more easily make decisions that are better for their long term health, even if it hurts their short-term quarterly numbers.
And hell, if your business model is proven, you can still sell the whole company to another entity when you're done with it to make your bag of cash ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800413</id>
	<title>Re:Audacious.</title>
	<author>Pollardito</author>
	<datestamp>1255948020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Making "good money" on an item is entirely relative.  I'm sure they'd be perfectly happy to make more than they are by taking a bigger piece from this end too.  It's just a question of when does gouging on storage costs cut too much into people's motivation for buying more storage, and apparently they've decided that this won't put them over that line.  If anything the fact that they feel this won't hurt their download sales enough to be counterproductive must mean that they feel that people are really motivated to download.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Making " good money " on an item is entirely relative .
I 'm sure they 'd be perfectly happy to make more than they are by taking a bigger piece from this end too .
It 's just a question of when does gouging on storage costs cut too much into people 's motivation for buying more storage , and apparently they 've decided that this wo n't put them over that line .
If anything the fact that they feel this wo n't hurt their download sales enough to be counterproductive must mean that they feel that people are really motivated to download .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Making "good money" on an item is entirely relative.
I'm sure they'd be perfectly happy to make more than they are by taking a bigger piece from this end too.
It's just a question of when does gouging on storage costs cut too much into people's motivation for buying more storage, and apparently they've decided that this won't put them over that line.
If anything the fact that they feel this won't hurt their download sales enough to be counterproductive must mean that they feel that people are really motivated to download.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800095</id>
	<title>Well...</title>
	<author>snkboarder</author>
	<datestamp>1255946760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>You all did it to yourselves.  I tried to warn caution when Microsoft entered the console market, but all you people would do was hug them for Halo.

They're like Wal-Mart, they move in, offer you low prices, then when the competition is smeared, they take you for everything you have.

Maybe next time MegaCorp shows up and goes "I'll give you a good deal if your forsake the competition" you'll stop and go: "Hmmm...did this work out for me last time?"</htmltext>
<tokenext>You all did it to yourselves .
I tried to warn caution when Microsoft entered the console market , but all you people would do was hug them for Halo .
They 're like Wal-Mart , they move in , offer you low prices , then when the competition is smeared , they take you for everything you have .
Maybe next time MegaCorp shows up and goes " I 'll give you a good deal if your forsake the competition " you 'll stop and go : " Hmmm...did this work out for me last time ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You all did it to yourselves.
I tried to warn caution when Microsoft entered the console market, but all you people would do was hug them for Halo.
They're like Wal-Mart, they move in, offer you low prices, then when the competition is smeared, they take you for everything you have.
Maybe next time MegaCorp shows up and goes "I'll give you a good deal if your forsake the competition" you'll stop and go: "Hmmm...did this work out for me last time?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800203</id>
	<title>cold day in hell</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255947180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It'll be a cold day in hell when I let them...  Ummm.  Did you say Xbox?   Oh.  I don't have one of those.  Never mind.  -- This is how most of the general public will respond.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 'll be a cold day in hell when I let them... Ummm. Did you say Xbox ?
Oh. I do n't have one of those .
Never mind .
-- This is how most of the general public will respond .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It'll be a cold day in hell when I let them...  Ummm.  Did you say Xbox?
Oh.  I don't have one of those.
Never mind.
-- This is how most of the general public will respond.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800249</id>
	<title>Re:And the slant comes out</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1255947360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apple is all about very limited support of hardware.  There is not the level of expectation that your rock bottom priced device is going to work with Apple hardware.  For instance, on Apple laptops, if the memory can be upgraded, the authorized upgrades cost up to twice as much as quality retail.  I have had memory rejected on a desktop after a system update.  I have had cameras that absolutely would not work with Apple hardware.  Then there is the difficulty buying WiFi adaptors.
<p>
While this situation is changing, Apple has never claimed to be company that supported everything.  MS has, and continues to so do.  I think this was the scary thing about Vista.  Here was a new OS from a company that was supposed to be about all commodity parts, and it did not run on commodity parts.  In fact it appeared that MS was trying to push a model where hardware and software vendors would have to pay MS for certification. While I don't think that MS is going to this extreme at the moment, such a path was a plausible scenario a year ago.  As Apple has shown, such a model can be profitable.
</p><p>
With the Pre, Apples motives are clear.  They do not want to do technical support on a device that they have no control over, and they do want the DRM stuff on the Pre.  It would be simple enough for the Pre to come with software that hooked into the standard filetypes Apple uses to sync.  True, someone would have to write this software, and the DRM stuff would not work, but it would be a better solution.  It is clear that Palm chose the budget solution.
</p><p>
Things are equally clear with the xbox.  The only reason there is an issue is because people are used to using commodity hardware on MS Windows, and MS has not differentiated the product enough to avoid the confusion.  I do not see this as a MS issue.  There is no reason for the xbox to be open.  It is really an problem of people thinking that anything MS is MS Windows.  I think that MS was trying to get away from the MS Windows legacy with Vista, but it did not work.  Given that failure, I am bit surprised they would try to close xbox, but would not criticize them in any other way for doing so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple is all about very limited support of hardware .
There is not the level of expectation that your rock bottom priced device is going to work with Apple hardware .
For instance , on Apple laptops , if the memory can be upgraded , the authorized upgrades cost up to twice as much as quality retail .
I have had memory rejected on a desktop after a system update .
I have had cameras that absolutely would not work with Apple hardware .
Then there is the difficulty buying WiFi adaptors .
While this situation is changing , Apple has never claimed to be company that supported everything .
MS has , and continues to so do .
I think this was the scary thing about Vista .
Here was a new OS from a company that was supposed to be about all commodity parts , and it did not run on commodity parts .
In fact it appeared that MS was trying to push a model where hardware and software vendors would have to pay MS for certification .
While I do n't think that MS is going to this extreme at the moment , such a path was a plausible scenario a year ago .
As Apple has shown , such a model can be profitable .
With the Pre , Apples motives are clear .
They do not want to do technical support on a device that they have no control over , and they do want the DRM stuff on the Pre .
It would be simple enough for the Pre to come with software that hooked into the standard filetypes Apple uses to sync .
True , someone would have to write this software , and the DRM stuff would not work , but it would be a better solution .
It is clear that Palm chose the budget solution .
Things are equally clear with the xbox .
The only reason there is an issue is because people are used to using commodity hardware on MS Windows , and MS has not differentiated the product enough to avoid the confusion .
I do not see this as a MS issue .
There is no reason for the xbox to be open .
It is really an problem of people thinking that anything MS is MS Windows .
I think that MS was trying to get away from the MS Windows legacy with Vista , but it did not work .
Given that failure , I am bit surprised they would try to close xbox , but would not criticize them in any other way for doing so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple is all about very limited support of hardware.
There is not the level of expectation that your rock bottom priced device is going to work with Apple hardware.
For instance, on Apple laptops, if the memory can be upgraded, the authorized upgrades cost up to twice as much as quality retail.
I have had memory rejected on a desktop after a system update.
I have had cameras that absolutely would not work with Apple hardware.
Then there is the difficulty buying WiFi adaptors.
While this situation is changing, Apple has never claimed to be company that supported everything.
MS has, and continues to so do.
I think this was the scary thing about Vista.
Here was a new OS from a company that was supposed to be about all commodity parts, and it did not run on commodity parts.
In fact it appeared that MS was trying to push a model where hardware and software vendors would have to pay MS for certification.
While I don't think that MS is going to this extreme at the moment, such a path was a plausible scenario a year ago.
As Apple has shown, such a model can be profitable.
With the Pre, Apples motives are clear.
They do not want to do technical support on a device that they have no control over, and they do want the DRM stuff on the Pre.
It would be simple enough for the Pre to come with software that hooked into the standard filetypes Apple uses to sync.
True, someone would have to write this software, and the DRM stuff would not work, but it would be a better solution.
It is clear that Palm chose the budget solution.
Things are equally clear with the xbox.
The only reason there is an issue is because people are used to using commodity hardware on MS Windows, and MS has not differentiated the product enough to avoid the confusion.
I do not see this as a MS issue.
There is no reason for the xbox to be open.
It is really an problem of people thinking that anything MS is MS Windows.
I think that MS was trying to get away from the MS Windows legacy with Vista, but it did not work.
Given that failure, I am bit surprised they would try to close xbox, but would not criticize them in any other way for doing so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799869</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800393</id>
	<title>Re:Anti-competitive</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255947960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do Sony and Nintendo have to do with the market for XBox peripherals?  You know, the one where currently several companies are successfully competing to sell products that consumers want, and which Microsoft is about to destroy by locking out all its competitors?</p><p>I fail to see how the potential existence of other markets alters the fact that <b>this</b> market is currently competitive and is about to become a monopoly.</p><p>Still, I'm not surprised that you'd fight to the death to defend a corporation from allegations of wrongdoing.  It is quite amazing what fanboyism can do to someone's capacity for rational thought.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do Sony and Nintendo have to do with the market for XBox peripherals ?
You know , the one where currently several companies are successfully competing to sell products that consumers want , and which Microsoft is about to destroy by locking out all its competitors ? I fail to see how the potential existence of other markets alters the fact that this market is currently competitive and is about to become a monopoly.Still , I 'm not surprised that you 'd fight to the death to defend a corporation from allegations of wrongdoing .
It is quite amazing what fanboyism can do to someone 's capacity for rational thought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do Sony and Nintendo have to do with the market for XBox peripherals?
You know, the one where currently several companies are successfully competing to sell products that consumers want, and which Microsoft is about to destroy by locking out all its competitors?I fail to see how the potential existence of other markets alters the fact that this market is currently competitive and is about to become a monopoly.Still, I'm not surprised that you'd fight to the death to defend a corporation from allegations of wrongdoing.
It is quite amazing what fanboyism can do to someone's capacity for rational thought.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800071</id>
	<title>what a bs move.. any way you look at it, it's lame</title>
	<author>Hobyx</author>
	<datestamp>1255946640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bean counters.. may they perish under the weight of a thousand pod husks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bean counters.. may they perish under the weight of a thousand pod husks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bean counters.. may they perish under the weight of a thousand pod husks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799667</id>
	<title>Trash the X-box ... Starcraft 2 will be here soon!</title>
	<author>ZuchinniOne</author>
	<datestamp>1255944900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stuff like this is why I still haven't bought an X-Box, PS3, or Wii<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I'm so sick of this proprietary crap.  I'm just waiting for an open source gaming system<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... oh yeah<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I've got a PC<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stuff like this is why I still have n't bought an X-Box , PS3 , or Wii ... I 'm so sick of this proprietary crap .
I 'm just waiting for an open source gaming system ... oh yeah ... I 've got a PC : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stuff like this is why I still haven't bought an X-Box, PS3, or Wii ... I'm so sick of this proprietary crap.
I'm just waiting for an open source gaming system ... oh yeah ... I've got a PC :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29805761</id>
	<title>Re:Well...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256040180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except for Nintendo, all of the console manufacturers are "MegaCorps."  Well, at this point, Nintendo might fit into that category as well.  Personally, I think MS did some good for the gaming market by taking up the space Sega left behind.  I'd hate to be in a Nintendo/Sony only console market.<br> <br>
I also fail to see the resemblance to Wal-Mart.  The X-Box 1 was never cheaper than the PS2 and the PS2 was never cheaper than the GameCube.  Everybody knew the hard drive situation on the 360 and PS3 from day 1.  MS took a chance by pricing the 360 higher than a typical console launch and they even had a lot of bad press from failures shortly after launch.  Where's the "good deal" they're offering to forsake the competition?  No, the 360 only gained a foothold because Sony did more things wrong before and during the launch of the PS3 than MS did and Nintendo didn't want to chase after the same market (which worked out really well for them).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except for Nintendo , all of the console manufacturers are " MegaCorps .
" Well , at this point , Nintendo might fit into that category as well .
Personally , I think MS did some good for the gaming market by taking up the space Sega left behind .
I 'd hate to be in a Nintendo/Sony only console market .
I also fail to see the resemblance to Wal-Mart .
The X-Box 1 was never cheaper than the PS2 and the PS2 was never cheaper than the GameCube .
Everybody knew the hard drive situation on the 360 and PS3 from day 1 .
MS took a chance by pricing the 360 higher than a typical console launch and they even had a lot of bad press from failures shortly after launch .
Where 's the " good deal " they 're offering to forsake the competition ?
No , the 360 only gained a foothold because Sony did more things wrong before and during the launch of the PS3 than MS did and Nintendo did n't want to chase after the same market ( which worked out really well for them ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except for Nintendo, all of the console manufacturers are "MegaCorps.
"  Well, at this point, Nintendo might fit into that category as well.
Personally, I think MS did some good for the gaming market by taking up the space Sega left behind.
I'd hate to be in a Nintendo/Sony only console market.
I also fail to see the resemblance to Wal-Mart.
The X-Box 1 was never cheaper than the PS2 and the PS2 was never cheaper than the GameCube.
Everybody knew the hard drive situation on the 360 and PS3 from day 1.
MS took a chance by pricing the 360 higher than a typical console launch and they even had a lot of bad press from failures shortly after launch.
Where's the "good deal" they're offering to forsake the competition?
No, the 360 only gained a foothold because Sony did more things wrong before and during the launch of the PS3 than MS did and Nintendo didn't want to chase after the same market (which worked out really well for them).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29808815</id>
	<title>Re:Anti-competitive</title>
	<author>wastedlife</author>
	<datestamp>1256056260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anti-competitive actions are not necessarily illegal. Bullshit, yes. Plus, even if it was illegal, they could claim that the hardware locking is for reasons of DRM and other storage products are violating the DMCA. As far as I can tell from hacks that are out there, there is no actual DRM at the hardware level, but it could be difficult for other manufacturers to claim otherwise.</p><p>One big reason that Microsoft should open up storage, is that the file-system and the files themselves are where the DRM happens. By allowing, but not supporting, users to add their own drives, the customers will have more room to buy more content from the movie, music, and game stores. This is a big issue with the new Games On Demand service, because these downloads can be up to the size of a dual-layer DVD. Having to redownload 8 GB of data because they had to delete it to make room for something else is not something people are going to do every time they want to play a game. Sure, customers could take out the drives, install Xplorer360 to access the filesystem and copy the files on their computers, and then find some means to break the DRM on the file, but they could do the same exact thing with the official hardware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anti-competitive actions are not necessarily illegal .
Bullshit , yes .
Plus , even if it was illegal , they could claim that the hardware locking is for reasons of DRM and other storage products are violating the DMCA .
As far as I can tell from hacks that are out there , there is no actual DRM at the hardware level , but it could be difficult for other manufacturers to claim otherwise.One big reason that Microsoft should open up storage , is that the file-system and the files themselves are where the DRM happens .
By allowing , but not supporting , users to add their own drives , the customers will have more room to buy more content from the movie , music , and game stores .
This is a big issue with the new Games On Demand service , because these downloads can be up to the size of a dual-layer DVD .
Having to redownload 8 GB of data because they had to delete it to make room for something else is not something people are going to do every time they want to play a game .
Sure , customers could take out the drives , install Xplorer360 to access the filesystem and copy the files on their computers , and then find some means to break the DRM on the file , but they could do the same exact thing with the official hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anti-competitive actions are not necessarily illegal.
Bullshit, yes.
Plus, even if it was illegal, they could claim that the hardware locking is for reasons of DRM and other storage products are violating the DMCA.
As far as I can tell from hacks that are out there, there is no actual DRM at the hardware level, but it could be difficult for other manufacturers to claim otherwise.One big reason that Microsoft should open up storage, is that the file-system and the files themselves are where the DRM happens.
By allowing, but not supporting, users to add their own drives, the customers will have more room to buy more content from the movie, music, and game stores.
This is a big issue with the new Games On Demand service, because these downloads can be up to the size of a dual-layer DVD.
Having to redownload 8 GB of data because they had to delete it to make room for something else is not something people are going to do every time they want to play a game.
Sure, customers could take out the drives, install Xplorer360 to access the filesystem and copy the files on their computers, and then find some means to break the DRM on the file, but they could do the same exact thing with the official hardware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29808693</id>
	<title>Re:Here we go again</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1256055900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing is, companies like Microsoft and Apple are so cash-rich that they consider any fines resulting from legal action to be the cost of doing business, because unless those fines are in the range of billions, they do not even show up as a blip on the quarterly reports.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing is , companies like Microsoft and Apple are so cash-rich that they consider any fines resulting from legal action to be the cost of doing business , because unless those fines are in the range of billions , they do not even show up as a blip on the quarterly reports .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing is, companies like Microsoft and Apple are so cash-rich that they consider any fines resulting from legal action to be the cost of doing business, because unless those fines are in the range of billions, they do not even show up as a blip on the quarterly reports.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29804911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29811933</id>
	<title>Re:Well...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256066460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why thank you, slashdot user snkboareder.  I'm sure we will remember your super important post 7 or 8 years ago warning us about the evils of the xbox, since you are a vital contributor to this website whose name everyone instantly recognizes.</p><p>Why, I'm kicking myself right now for my own foolishness.  Viva la Marxism!  Viva la proletariat!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why thank you , slashdot user snkboareder .
I 'm sure we will remember your super important post 7 or 8 years ago warning us about the evils of the xbox , since you are a vital contributor to this website whose name everyone instantly recognizes.Why , I 'm kicking myself right now for my own foolishness .
Viva la Marxism !
Viva la proletariat !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why thank you, slashdot user snkboareder.
I'm sure we will remember your super important post 7 or 8 years ago warning us about the evils of the xbox, since you are a vital contributor to this website whose name everyone instantly recognizes.Why, I'm kicking myself right now for my own foolishness.
Viva la Marxism!
Viva la proletariat!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801577</id>
	<title>this is my first and last</title>
	<author>markringen</author>
	<datestamp>1255954020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>this is my first and last Microsoft console, Sony knows better how to threat their customers and allow their users to do whatever they want...
I've just backed up all my saves games to my pc on my ps3, still not possible on my xbox360...</htmltext>
<tokenext>this is my first and last Microsoft console , Sony knows better how to threat their customers and allow their users to do whatever they want.. . I 've just backed up all my saves games to my pc on my ps3 , still not possible on my xbox360.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is my first and last Microsoft console, Sony knows better how to threat their customers and allow their users to do whatever they want...
I've just backed up all my saves games to my pc on my ps3, still not possible on my xbox360...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801405</id>
	<title>Re:Audacious.</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1255953120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So why not look at their financial situation? At a very high level, things do not appear to be 'dire', with $20 billion of operating income, and $14.5 billion of net income:</p><p><a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=MSFT&amp;annual" title="yahoo.com" rel="nofollow">http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=MSFT&amp;annual</a> [yahoo.com]</p><p>If the 2008-&gt;2009 trend of less revenues and less income continues, they would be in trouble, but having $14 billion of income isn't a real terrible place to be (especially if you compare it to revenues, most companies would wet themselves to net $0.25 on each $1.00 of revenues).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So why not look at their financial situation ?
At a very high level , things do not appear to be 'dire ' , with $ 20 billion of operating income , and $ 14.5 billion of net income : http : //finance.yahoo.com/q/is ? s = MSFT&amp;annual [ yahoo.com ] If the 2008- &gt; 2009 trend of less revenues and less income continues , they would be in trouble , but having $ 14 billion of income is n't a real terrible place to be ( especially if you compare it to revenues , most companies would wet themselves to net $ 0.25 on each $ 1.00 of revenues ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So why not look at their financial situation?
At a very high level, things do not appear to be 'dire', with $20 billion of operating income, and $14.5 billion of net income:http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=MSFT&amp;annual [yahoo.com]If the 2008-&gt;2009 trend of less revenues and less income continues, they would be in trouble, but having $14 billion of income isn't a real terrible place to be (especially if you compare it to revenues, most companies would wet themselves to net $0.25 on each $1.00 of revenues).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800873</id>
	<title>Re:Or 120GB for $54.99</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255950180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I had a 20GB Pro and I upgraded to a 120GB not too long ago. I gave my 20GB to my best friend because she had an Arcade model. <br> <br>

With that being said, I must give Sony and Nintendo credit, PS3 supports any USB storage or 2.5" SATA (I have 500GB) thats formatted in FAT32 (nobody's perfect) while Nintendo supports any model SD cards up to 32GB SDHC which is "good enough" for the Wii. <br> <br>

I see this path going down the same way the controllers did <br> <br>

History lesson: since 3rd party controllers have died out they have doubled in price or more(at least in Australia. Even as far as last gen a wireless Gamecube controller 3rd party was $AU30, regular Gamecube, Xbox and PS2 controllers were about the same price both official and 3rd party. <br> <br>

Current prices: <br>
360 Controller $AU64 <br>
Wiimote = $AU60, Nunchuck = $AU27, so for a usable control system thats $AU87
Dualshock 3 = $AU99 <br> <br>

Prices may vary depending how well you shop around but you get my point. They are all way above the origional $30 price point for an extra controller. <br> <br>

I wonder if Microsoft are trying to plan the same fate for memory cards.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had a 20GB Pro and I upgraded to a 120GB not too long ago .
I gave my 20GB to my best friend because she had an Arcade model .
With that being said , I must give Sony and Nintendo credit , PS3 supports any USB storage or 2.5 " SATA ( I have 500GB ) thats formatted in FAT32 ( nobody 's perfect ) while Nintendo supports any model SD cards up to 32GB SDHC which is " good enough " for the Wii .
I see this path going down the same way the controllers did History lesson : since 3rd party controllers have died out they have doubled in price or more ( at least in Australia .
Even as far as last gen a wireless Gamecube controller 3rd party was $ AU30 , regular Gamecube , Xbox and PS2 controllers were about the same price both official and 3rd party .
Current prices : 360 Controller $ AU64 Wiimote = $ AU60 , Nunchuck = $ AU27 , so for a usable control system thats $ AU87 Dualshock 3 = $ AU99 Prices may vary depending how well you shop around but you get my point .
They are all way above the origional $ 30 price point for an extra controller .
I wonder if Microsoft are trying to plan the same fate for memory cards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had a 20GB Pro and I upgraded to a 120GB not too long ago.
I gave my 20GB to my best friend because she had an Arcade model.
With that being said, I must give Sony and Nintendo credit, PS3 supports any USB storage or 2.5" SATA (I have 500GB) thats formatted in FAT32 (nobody's perfect) while Nintendo supports any model SD cards up to 32GB SDHC which is "good enough" for the Wii.
I see this path going down the same way the controllers did  

History lesson: since 3rd party controllers have died out they have doubled in price or more(at least in Australia.
Even as far as last gen a wireless Gamecube controller 3rd party was $AU30, regular Gamecube, Xbox and PS2 controllers were about the same price both official and 3rd party.
Current prices: 
360 Controller $AU64 
Wiimote = $AU60, Nunchuck = $AU27, so for a usable control system thats $AU87
Dualshock 3 = $AU99  

Prices may vary depending how well you shop around but you get my point.
They are all way above the origional $30 price point for an extra controller.
I wonder if Microsoft are trying to plan the same fate for memory cards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29808207</id>
	<title>Re:Audacious.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256054280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>MSFT is getting desperate to squeeze a profit out of their gaming devision for fear of losing the whole thing</p></div><p>Hah !   Don't be silly...MS is doing the same thing they have always done - charge everyone for everything. It's standard MO for Microsoft to charge consumers, developers and 3rd parties and anyone else. They use their muscle to screw everyone.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>MSFT is getting desperate to squeeze a profit out of their gaming devision for fear of losing the whole thingHah !
Do n't be silly...MS is doing the same thing they have always done - charge everyone for everything .
It 's standard MO for Microsoft to charge consumers , developers and 3rd parties and anyone else .
They use their muscle to screw everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MSFT is getting desperate to squeeze a profit out of their gaming devision for fear of losing the whole thingHah !
Don't be silly...MS is doing the same thing they have always done - charge everyone for everything.
It's standard MO for Microsoft to charge consumers, developers and 3rd parties and anyone else.
They use their muscle to screw everyone.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799971</id>
	<title>Misinformation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255946160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The drive-less Xbox 360 Arcade unit is cheap ($199) but to realistically use it, you'll need to buy a "Memory Unit" (basically a proprietary USB stick) or an Xbox hard drive.... A 512 MB Microsoft branded Memory Unit goes for $29.99 at BestBuy.com.</p> </div><p>The current version of the Arcade comes with 512M internal memory, so throw this whole statement out the window.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The drive-less Xbox 360 Arcade unit is cheap ( $ 199 ) but to realistically use it , you 'll need to buy a " Memory Unit " ( basically a proprietary USB stick ) or an Xbox hard drive.... A 512 MB Microsoft branded Memory Unit goes for $ 29.99 at BestBuy.com .
The current version of the Arcade comes with 512M internal memory , so throw this whole statement out the window .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The drive-less Xbox 360 Arcade unit is cheap ($199) but to realistically use it, you'll need to buy a "Memory Unit" (basically a proprietary USB stick) or an Xbox hard drive.... A 512 MB Microsoft branded Memory Unit goes for $29.99 at BestBuy.com.
The current version of the Arcade comes with 512M internal memory, so throw this whole statement out the window.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801175</id>
	<title>Re:Misinformation</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1255951920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've got save games from RPGs that take up a significant portion of that. Not to mention that the smallest downloadable games clock in at 50MB. So yes, using all the advertised features of the Xbox in a realistic manner requires you to purchase additional storage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got save games from RPGs that take up a significant portion of that .
Not to mention that the smallest downloadable games clock in at 50MB .
So yes , using all the advertised features of the Xbox in a realistic manner requires you to purchase additional storage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've got save games from RPGs that take up a significant portion of that.
Not to mention that the smallest downloadable games clock in at 50MB.
So yes, using all the advertised features of the Xbox in a realistic manner requires you to purchase additional storage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29806399</id>
	<title>Re:This will kill them</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256046420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(I went with a 7.2k one and some things are noticeably faster)</p></div><p>Because 7.2k is all you need</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( I went with a 7.2k one and some things are noticeably faster ) Because 7.2k is all you need</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(I went with a 7.2k one and some things are noticeably faster)Because 7.2k is all you need
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800011</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29883165</id>
	<title>Re:Audacious.</title>
	<author>Sundawn</author>
	<datestamp>1256655000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>futile effort then.

the level of piracy with custom dvd drive firmware on the 360 is already at a high with people not caring about online play or gamerscores. basically the same as piracy on the PC (by people not caring about online gameplay there either).

meanwhile sony maintains a "open platform" even running its own linux distro, serving the basic needs of homebrew on a Cell, expandable with regular aftermarket stuff....
all that with maintaining security to hardware, maybe learning lessons from the PSP hacks?
because of this i think the interest in hacking the ps3 is considerably smaller that doing the 360</htmltext>
<tokenext>futile effort then .
the level of piracy with custom dvd drive firmware on the 360 is already at a high with people not caring about online play or gamerscores .
basically the same as piracy on the PC ( by people not caring about online gameplay there either ) .
meanwhile sony maintains a " open platform " even running its own linux distro , serving the basic needs of homebrew on a Cell , expandable with regular aftermarket stuff... . all that with maintaining security to hardware , maybe learning lessons from the PSP hacks ?
because of this i think the interest in hacking the ps3 is considerably smaller that doing the 360</tokentext>
<sentencetext>futile effort then.
the level of piracy with custom dvd drive firmware on the 360 is already at a high with people not caring about online play or gamerscores.
basically the same as piracy on the PC (by people not caring about online gameplay there either).
meanwhile sony maintains a "open platform" even running its own linux distro, serving the basic needs of homebrew on a Cell, expandable with regular aftermarket stuff....
all that with maintaining security to hardware, maybe learning lessons from the PSP hacks?
because of this i think the interest in hacking the ps3 is considerably smaller that doing the 360</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802747</id>
	<title>Re:Small Monthly Fees, Get Used to It</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255961040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You don't "own" your cellphone, SIM card, or it's data. You simply rent it, for a "small monthly fee".</p></div></blockquote><p>Lie.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't " own " your cellphone , SIM card , or it 's data .
You simply rent it , for a " small monthly fee " .Lie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't "own" your cellphone, SIM card, or it's data.
You simply rent it, for a "small monthly fee".Lie.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802303</id>
	<title>Re:Small Monthly Fees, Get Used to It</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255958340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you want to own a cellphone, move to the UK. You can get a brand new, decent, ordinary cellphone with no network lockout for $30 from Amazon.<br><br>&lt;paranoia hat&gt;(And there's only a 23\% chance that you'll be considered a terrorist for buying more than one at once. That'll become 230\% if you have a suspicious name.)&lt;/paranoia hat&gt;<br><br>&lt;tinfoil hat&gt;(And modern cellphones are all wiretapped and booby trapped in every country, so what can ya do?)&lt;/tinfoil hat&gt;</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to own a cellphone , move to the UK .
You can get a brand new , decent , ordinary cellphone with no network lockout for $ 30 from Amazon .
( And there 's only a 23 \ % chance that you 'll be considered a terrorist for buying more than one at once .
That 'll become 230 \ % if you have a suspicious name .
) ( And modern cellphones are all wiretapped and booby trapped in every country , so what can ya do ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to own a cellphone, move to the UK.
You can get a brand new, decent, ordinary cellphone with no network lockout for $30 from Amazon.
(And there's only a 23\% chance that you'll be considered a terrorist for buying more than one at once.
That'll become 230\% if you have a suspicious name.
)(And modern cellphones are all wiretapped and booby trapped in every country, so what can ya do?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29808565</id>
	<title>Re:Audacious.</title>
	<author>wastedlife</author>
	<datestamp>1256055540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As far as I know from reading about hacks to replace the hard drive, the DRM is on a file system and file level and not in hardware on the drives. You can unlock the file system by removing the drive while the system is browsing the drive. You can then connect the drive to your computer with SATA (the connector on the enclosure is just a funky SATA+power connector from MS, while inside of the enclosure the drive uses standard SATA) and access, move, or copy the files, but they will not work without you having signed into your account on the 360. Sure, there is a special firmware on the drive to tell the system it is an official drive, but from what I have seen, that is all it does. There is a <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/150970/upgrade\_your\_xbox\_360s\_hard\_drive\_on\_the\_cheap.html" title="pcworld.com">hack</a> [pcworld.com] to install an off-the-shelf SATA drive by replacing the firmware on the drive. The only excuse I can think that they could use is that they do not want to deal with supporting unofficial hardware or what that hardware could do to the system. This is understandable, to a degree. However, the profit margins they must be making by selling a 120 GB drive for $160, when you can get a similar model drive from Newegg for $65 dollars or less (Actual drive is WD1200BEVS, Newegg has WD1200BEVE for $65 and WD1200BEVT for $55, and I believe one or both of them are compatible with the hack), tell me that they are locking you to their drives for pure greed and nothing else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as I know from reading about hacks to replace the hard drive , the DRM is on a file system and file level and not in hardware on the drives .
You can unlock the file system by removing the drive while the system is browsing the drive .
You can then connect the drive to your computer with SATA ( the connector on the enclosure is just a funky SATA + power connector from MS , while inside of the enclosure the drive uses standard SATA ) and access , move , or copy the files , but they will not work without you having signed into your account on the 360 .
Sure , there is a special firmware on the drive to tell the system it is an official drive , but from what I have seen , that is all it does .
There is a hack [ pcworld.com ] to install an off-the-shelf SATA drive by replacing the firmware on the drive .
The only excuse I can think that they could use is that they do not want to deal with supporting unofficial hardware or what that hardware could do to the system .
This is understandable , to a degree .
However , the profit margins they must be making by selling a 120 GB drive for $ 160 , when you can get a similar model drive from Newegg for $ 65 dollars or less ( Actual drive is WD1200BEVS , Newegg has WD1200BEVE for $ 65 and WD1200BEVT for $ 55 , and I believe one or both of them are compatible with the hack ) , tell me that they are locking you to their drives for pure greed and nothing else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as I know from reading about hacks to replace the hard drive, the DRM is on a file system and file level and not in hardware on the drives.
You can unlock the file system by removing the drive while the system is browsing the drive.
You can then connect the drive to your computer with SATA (the connector on the enclosure is just a funky SATA+power connector from MS, while inside of the enclosure the drive uses standard SATA) and access, move, or copy the files, but they will not work without you having signed into your account on the 360.
Sure, there is a special firmware on the drive to tell the system it is an official drive, but from what I have seen, that is all it does.
There is a hack [pcworld.com] to install an off-the-shelf SATA drive by replacing the firmware on the drive.
The only excuse I can think that they could use is that they do not want to deal with supporting unofficial hardware or what that hardware could do to the system.
This is understandable, to a degree.
However, the profit margins they must be making by selling a 120 GB drive for $160, when you can get a similar model drive from Newegg for $65 dollars or less (Actual drive is WD1200BEVS, Newegg has WD1200BEVE for $65 and WD1200BEVT for $55, and I believe one or both of them are compatible with the hack), tell me that they are locking you to their drives for pure greed and nothing else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801931</id>
	<title>Re:And the slant comes out</title>
	<author>Dahamma</author>
	<datestamp>1255956000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, it's timothy posting about Microsoft, so what did you expect...</p><p>Though if you want to see REAL slant/fanbois, check out the link to Major Nelson's post.  I don't see a single positive thing about this decision from a customer's perspective, yet there are dozens of people posting inane comments like "Great, can't wait, good job!" and "I only buy MS official gear, so it's fine by me!"  Makes me wonder if he requires all his employees to reply to his blog posts...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , it 's timothy posting about Microsoft , so what did you expect...Though if you want to see REAL slant/fanbois , check out the link to Major Nelson 's post .
I do n't see a single positive thing about this decision from a customer 's perspective , yet there are dozens of people posting inane comments like " Great , ca n't wait , good job !
" and " I only buy MS official gear , so it 's fine by me !
" Makes me wonder if he requires all his employees to reply to his blog posts.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, it's timothy posting about Microsoft, so what did you expect...Though if you want to see REAL slant/fanbois, check out the link to Major Nelson's post.
I don't see a single positive thing about this decision from a customer's perspective, yet there are dozens of people posting inane comments like "Great, can't wait, good job!
" and "I only buy MS official gear, so it's fine by me!
"  Makes me wonder if he requires all his employees to reply to his blog posts...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799869</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799641</id>
	<title>Audacious.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255944780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I find Microsoft's willingness to squeeze for storage interesting in two respects: One, it suggests a very high level of optimism about their position in the market. Two, it suggests that they don't much care about, or aren't making much money from, downloadable offerings for the Xbox(or that they view those offerings as being extremely compelling and likely to drive consumer behavior).<br> <br>

If they weren't confident of their position, and were actively trying to drive down the perceived cost of their product, storage would be a natural target. Just let people use bog-standard flash drives for game storage, and the market will continually release cheaper ones faster than any one company could even do design revisions. Same basic idea with basic HDDs. The fact that Microsoft isn't doing that suggests that they are very confident in their price point.<br> <br>

As for downloads, if Microsoft were making good money on those, they would want users to have huge hard drives, rather than limping along on a nasty little 512meg card. Again, they don't seem to be thus motivated.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find Microsoft 's willingness to squeeze for storage interesting in two respects : One , it suggests a very high level of optimism about their position in the market .
Two , it suggests that they do n't much care about , or are n't making much money from , downloadable offerings for the Xbox ( or that they view those offerings as being extremely compelling and likely to drive consumer behavior ) .
If they were n't confident of their position , and were actively trying to drive down the perceived cost of their product , storage would be a natural target .
Just let people use bog-standard flash drives for game storage , and the market will continually release cheaper ones faster than any one company could even do design revisions .
Same basic idea with basic HDDs .
The fact that Microsoft is n't doing that suggests that they are very confident in their price point .
As for downloads , if Microsoft were making good money on those , they would want users to have huge hard drives , rather than limping along on a nasty little 512meg card .
Again , they do n't seem to be thus motivated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find Microsoft's willingness to squeeze for storage interesting in two respects: One, it suggests a very high level of optimism about their position in the market.
Two, it suggests that they don't much care about, or aren't making much money from, downloadable offerings for the Xbox(or that they view those offerings as being extremely compelling and likely to drive consumer behavior).
If they weren't confident of their position, and were actively trying to drive down the perceived cost of their product, storage would be a natural target.
Just let people use bog-standard flash drives for game storage, and the market will continually release cheaper ones faster than any one company could even do design revisions.
Same basic idea with basic HDDs.
The fact that Microsoft isn't doing that suggests that they are very confident in their price point.
As for downloads, if Microsoft were making good money on those, they would want users to have huge hard drives, rather than limping along on a nasty little 512meg card.
Again, they don't seem to be thus motivated.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29816613</id>
	<title>Xbox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256043000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft can blow me.</p><p>A fucking 40 year old pong game is better</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft can blow me.A fucking 40 year old pong game is better</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft can blow me.A fucking 40 year old pong game is better</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801839</id>
	<title>Re:Trash the X-box ... Starcraft 2 will be here so</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255955520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no Open Source gaming system on a PC. Considering you can not get any decent games for linux.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no Open Source gaming system on a PC .
Considering you can not get any decent games for linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no Open Source gaming system on a PC.
Considering you can not get any decent games for linux.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800949</id>
	<title>Re:This will kill them</title>
	<author>brkello</author>
	<datestamp>1255950660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think most gamers look at what games are on each system.  I don't think they care about storage.  Besides, if you cared you would buy an elite anyways.  I don't see this really changing the playing field at all.  It will only be another point PS3 fanboys use in their endless war of stupidity versus the other fanboys.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think most gamers look at what games are on each system .
I do n't think they care about storage .
Besides , if you cared you would buy an elite anyways .
I do n't see this really changing the playing field at all .
It will only be another point PS3 fanboys use in their endless war of stupidity versus the other fanboys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think most gamers look at what games are on each system.
I don't think they care about storage.
Besides, if you cared you would buy an elite anyways.
I don't see this really changing the playing field at all.
It will only be another point PS3 fanboys use in their endless war of stupidity versus the other fanboys.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800011</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800845</id>
	<title>Arcade comes with 512MB</title>
	<author>tholomyes</author>
	<datestamp>1255950060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The drive-less Xbox 360 Arcade unit is cheap ($199) but to realistically use it, you'll need to buy a "Memory Unit"...</p></div><p>Not strictly accurate; I purchased an Arcade a few months back to replace my dead Elite, and they now come with a built-in 512MB. They've had at least 256MB internal memory since late 2008.</p><p>Also note that there <i>are</i> third-parties with "authorized" storage solutions, this isn't a carte blanche ban on all third-party storage. Still, it seems like a random anti-feature.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The drive-less Xbox 360 Arcade unit is cheap ( $ 199 ) but to realistically use it , you 'll need to buy a " Memory Unit " ...Not strictly accurate ; I purchased an Arcade a few months back to replace my dead Elite , and they now come with a built-in 512MB .
They 've had at least 256MB internal memory since late 2008.Also note that there are third-parties with " authorized " storage solutions , this is n't a carte blanche ban on all third-party storage .
Still , it seems like a random anti-feature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The drive-less Xbox 360 Arcade unit is cheap ($199) but to realistically use it, you'll need to buy a "Memory Unit"...Not strictly accurate; I purchased an Arcade a few months back to replace my dead Elite, and they now come with a built-in 512MB.
They've had at least 256MB internal memory since late 2008.Also note that there are third-parties with "authorized" storage solutions, this isn't a carte blanche ban on all third-party storage.
Still, it seems like a random anti-feature.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29805845</id>
	<title>lol xbox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256041200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>only retards with the IQ of a wet piece of sellery by an XBOX</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>only retards with the IQ of a wet piece of sellery by an XBOX</tokentext>
<sentencetext>only retards with the IQ of a wet piece of sellery by an XBOX</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29811249</id>
	<title>Re:Misinformation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256064120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But this internal 512mb card is taken up mostly by the new dashboard, leaving you with the need for more space for game data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But this internal 512mb card is taken up mostly by the new dashboard , leaving you with the need for more space for game data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But this internal 512mb card is taken up mostly by the new dashboard, leaving you with the need for more space for game data.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799839</id>
	<title>Re:Trash the X-box ... Starcraft 2 will be here so</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255945560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, it'll be great to play StarCraft 2 on a bunch of home built computers on your private home network! Ohhhh, yeah, that's right they took that you so you still have to connect to Battle.Net in order to play a LAN multiplayer game.</p><p>It's also really awesome that they're launching it for not one but two open source platforms! Oh, right, forgot... Windows and OS X aren't actually open source.</p><p>But yeah! Right there with ya man! I'm so sick of this proprietary crap too! I just can't wait for Blizzard to finish making their product which includes pretty much a custom built set of code that is not available to anyone but Blizzard employees... making it not really an open product.</p><p>Hmm... well, guess its not as open souce as I thought but woo, man that spin was great for about 15 seconds!</p><p>Linux!!!! Wooo! *kegstand*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , it 'll be great to play StarCraft 2 on a bunch of home built computers on your private home network !
Ohhhh , yeah , that 's right they took that you so you still have to connect to Battle.Net in order to play a LAN multiplayer game.It 's also really awesome that they 're launching it for not one but two open source platforms !
Oh , right , forgot... Windows and OS X are n't actually open source.But yeah !
Right there with ya man !
I 'm so sick of this proprietary crap too !
I just ca n't wait for Blizzard to finish making their product which includes pretty much a custom built set of code that is not available to anyone but Blizzard employees... making it not really an open product.Hmm... well , guess its not as open souce as I thought but woo , man that spin was great for about 15 seconds ! Linux ! ! ! !
Wooo ! * kegstand *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, it'll be great to play StarCraft 2 on a bunch of home built computers on your private home network!
Ohhhh, yeah, that's right they took that you so you still have to connect to Battle.Net in order to play a LAN multiplayer game.It's also really awesome that they're launching it for not one but two open source platforms!
Oh, right, forgot... Windows and OS X aren't actually open source.But yeah!
Right there with ya man!
I'm so sick of this proprietary crap too!
I just can't wait for Blizzard to finish making their product which includes pretty much a custom built set of code that is not available to anyone but Blizzard employees... making it not really an open product.Hmm... well, guess its not as open souce as I thought but woo, man that spin was great for about 15 seconds!Linux!!!!
Wooo! *kegstand*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29808625</id>
	<title>Re:Is is legal to remove functions after purchase?</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1256055720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean, like selling people functionality which is avertised as a key feature then removing it, like Apple did on the iPhone with the 3.1.x updates?</p><p>Microsoft is evil for doing this, but they are not the only ones. Sometimes Slashdot's "most favored" manufacturers do this as well.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-( Unfortunately, when it comes to making a buck, committing what is effectively fraud (selling functionality then removing it after the sale is made) to sell it back at a premium (making the customer buy it twice or more) is becoming the standard way of doing business nowadays, because the punitive results from legal action are negligible and are just considered the cost of doing business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean , like selling people functionality which is avertised as a key feature then removing it , like Apple did on the iPhone with the 3.1.x updates ? Microsoft is evil for doing this , but they are not the only ones .
Sometimes Slashdot 's " most favored " manufacturers do this as well .
: - ( Unfortunately , when it comes to making a buck , committing what is effectively fraud ( selling functionality then removing it after the sale is made ) to sell it back at a premium ( making the customer buy it twice or more ) is becoming the standard way of doing business nowadays , because the punitive results from legal action are negligible and are just considered the cost of doing business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean, like selling people functionality which is avertised as a key feature then removing it, like Apple did on the iPhone with the 3.1.x updates?Microsoft is evil for doing this, but they are not the only ones.
Sometimes Slashdot's "most favored" manufacturers do this as well.
:-( Unfortunately, when it comes to making a buck, committing what is effectively fraud (selling functionality then removing it after the sale is made) to sell it back at a premium (making the customer buy it twice or more) is becoming the standard way of doing business nowadays, because the punitive results from legal action are negligible and are just considered the cost of doing business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802345</id>
	<title>Re:Or 120GB for $54.99</title>
	<author>MrKaos</author>
	<datestamp>1255958580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> Isn't that exactly what they're doing here? Locking out unauthorized storage.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Well, what they are actually doing is herding xbox360 users and their money where they want them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't that exactly what they 're doing here ?
Locking out unauthorized storage .
Well , what they are actually doing is herding xbox360 users and their money where they want them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Isn't that exactly what they're doing here?
Locking out unauthorized storage.
Well, what they are actually doing is herding xbox360 users and their money where they want them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801745</id>
	<title>Re:Audacious.</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1255954920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Microsoft wants to squeeze money out of Xbox Live, they'd be better off charging advertisers for the eyes on it. (Which they already do to some extent, but there's a lot of missed potential.) That'll make them money on Silver accounts as well as Gold ones, and frankly it's a more reliable revenue stream with less overhead.</p><p>My impression has always been that the Xbox Live charge has mostly been for server costs and reducing the number of griefers. (People are going to be nicer if they know that they're out $50 if they get kicked from the service.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Microsoft wants to squeeze money out of Xbox Live , they 'd be better off charging advertisers for the eyes on it .
( Which they already do to some extent , but there 's a lot of missed potential .
) That 'll make them money on Silver accounts as well as Gold ones , and frankly it 's a more reliable revenue stream with less overhead.My impression has always been that the Xbox Live charge has mostly been for server costs and reducing the number of griefers .
( People are going to be nicer if they know that they 're out $ 50 if they get kicked from the service .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Microsoft wants to squeeze money out of Xbox Live, they'd be better off charging advertisers for the eyes on it.
(Which they already do to some extent, but there's a lot of missed potential.
) That'll make them money on Silver accounts as well as Gold ones, and frankly it's a more reliable revenue stream with less overhead.My impression has always been that the Xbox Live charge has mostly been for server costs and reducing the number of griefers.
(People are going to be nicer if they know that they're out $50 if they get kicked from the service.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800265</id>
	<title>Re:Or 120GB for $54.99</title>
	<author>oldmankdude</author>
	<datestamp>1255947480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>MS can identify the drives already by what they call HDD SS (security sector). If you rolled your own drive, you more than likely used somebody else's HDD SS (one that said your drive is 120GB). What we don't know is if MS is going to scan for them!</htmltext>
<tokenext>MS can identify the drives already by what they call HDD SS ( security sector ) .
If you rolled your own drive , you more than likely used somebody else 's HDD SS ( one that said your drive is 120GB ) .
What we do n't know is if MS is going to scan for them !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS can identify the drives already by what they call HDD SS (security sector).
If you rolled your own drive, you more than likely used somebody else's HDD SS (one that said your drive is 120GB).
What we don't know is if MS is going to scan for them!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801001</id>
	<title>Re:Is is legal to remove functions after purchase?</title>
	<author>brkello</author>
	<datestamp>1255950960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You would have a point if MS ever advertised that you could use any third party storage device.  I don't know that they ever did...and I imagine if they did someone would have already posted it.   Generally software updates are a good thing as it increases functionality and reduces bugs.  Unfortunately, for consoles it also means that they try to control their product more as well.  This is the reality of consoles though.  The current industry players all want locked down standardized hardware so that they maximize their profits and reduce piracy.<br> <br>Just pretend they are apple.  All they are trying to do is "control the experience" so that everyone has the best experience possible.  Third party hardware could lessen your experience because it may not work as well.  Yeah, it is BS, but for some reason people on here believe it when Apple tells it to them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You would have a point if MS ever advertised that you could use any third party storage device .
I do n't know that they ever did...and I imagine if they did someone would have already posted it .
Generally software updates are a good thing as it increases functionality and reduces bugs .
Unfortunately , for consoles it also means that they try to control their product more as well .
This is the reality of consoles though .
The current industry players all want locked down standardized hardware so that they maximize their profits and reduce piracy .
Just pretend they are apple .
All they are trying to do is " control the experience " so that everyone has the best experience possible .
Third party hardware could lessen your experience because it may not work as well .
Yeah , it is BS , but for some reason people on here believe it when Apple tells it to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You would have a point if MS ever advertised that you could use any third party storage device.
I don't know that they ever did...and I imagine if they did someone would have already posted it.
Generally software updates are a good thing as it increases functionality and reduces bugs.
Unfortunately, for consoles it also means that they try to control their product more as well.
This is the reality of consoles though.
The current industry players all want locked down standardized hardware so that they maximize their profits and reduce piracy.
Just pretend they are apple.
All they are trying to do is "control the experience" so that everyone has the best experience possible.
Third party hardware could lessen your experience because it may not work as well.
Yeah, it is BS, but for some reason people on here believe it when Apple tells it to them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29803381</id>
	<title>Re:This will kill them</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255966080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No it won't... if the housing loan crisis taught us anything is that US consumers in general have no long term vision... oh, look... I finally didn't blow my paycheck enough to have 200 dollars to buy the cheapest console... lets get it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No it wo n't... if the housing loan crisis taught us anything is that US consumers in general have no long term vision... oh , look... I finally did n't blow my paycheck enough to have 200 dollars to buy the cheapest console... lets get it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No it won't... if the housing loan crisis taught us anything is that US consumers in general have no long term vision... oh, look... I finally didn't blow my paycheck enough to have 200 dollars to buy the cheapest console... lets get it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800011</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800011</id>
	<title>This will kill them</title>
	<author>PhunkySchtuff</author>
	<datestamp>1255946400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This will kill them in the battle against the PS3. Sony make it so easy, for a start every PS3 comes with a hard drive, so games developers can assume that there is bulk persistent storage there and take advantage of it. You can also use USB mass storage devices. You can also upgrade the internal hard drive with undoing just a couple of screws, and it's all supported.</p><p>Sony have an easy way for you to back up your PS3 to an external USB hard drive, you then insert any laptop hard drive (I went with a 7.2k one and some things are noticeably faster) and you then restore your system onto the new hard drive. All without paying Sony an extra cent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This will kill them in the battle against the PS3 .
Sony make it so easy , for a start every PS3 comes with a hard drive , so games developers can assume that there is bulk persistent storage there and take advantage of it .
You can also use USB mass storage devices .
You can also upgrade the internal hard drive with undoing just a couple of screws , and it 's all supported.Sony have an easy way for you to back up your PS3 to an external USB hard drive , you then insert any laptop hard drive ( I went with a 7.2k one and some things are noticeably faster ) and you then restore your system onto the new hard drive .
All without paying Sony an extra cent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will kill them in the battle against the PS3.
Sony make it so easy, for a start every PS3 comes with a hard drive, so games developers can assume that there is bulk persistent storage there and take advantage of it.
You can also use USB mass storage devices.
You can also upgrade the internal hard drive with undoing just a couple of screws, and it's all supported.Sony have an easy way for you to back up your PS3 to an external USB hard drive, you then insert any laptop hard drive (I went with a 7.2k one and some things are noticeably faster) and you then restore your system onto the new hard drive.
All without paying Sony an extra cent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801721</id>
	<title>Taking bets,...</title>
	<author>GHynson</author>
	<datestamp>1255954800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who wants to a bet $5 that there will be a workaround the day the update goes out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who wants to a bet $ 5 that there will be a workaround the day the update goes out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who wants to a bet $5 that there will be a workaround the day the update goes out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801735</id>
	<title>Surprise!</title>
	<author>Nekomusume</author>
	<datestamp>1255954860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're still evil!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're still evil !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're still evil!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29804567</id>
	<title>Microsoft bend their customers over a barrel and</title>
	<author>phlegmboy</author>
	<datestamp>1255980300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>give them a right old anal fisting, yet again.

What a surprise.</htmltext>
<tokenext>give them a right old anal fisting , yet again .
What a surprise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>give them a right old anal fisting, yet again.
What a surprise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29804625</id>
	<title>Re:Audacious.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255981140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm getting the impression that I'm being fleeced every time I want to do something useful. Maybe that PS3 isn't such a bad idea after all.</p></div><p>It sure seems that way. Thats why I checked what exclusives Xbox 360 has down the pipe and I'll probably part with it on Christmas.</p><p>With each day of using my 360 (I have it for about two years, no RROD) I'm getting more frustrated about its shortcomings:<br>- Premium with 20gb is too small for just the demos not to mention installations and video content (and 120gb will only help a little)<br>- no Wi-fi, the dongle is too expensive and is another part I have to carry/worry about when I'm traveling<br>- subscription to play online games</p><p>there is also the issue of controller charger (had to buy one separately, bought a wrong one and its barely working) and now that we have Slim, size (for those that travel) .</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm getting the impression that I 'm being fleeced every time I want to do something useful .
Maybe that PS3 is n't such a bad idea after all.It sure seems that way .
Thats why I checked what exclusives Xbox 360 has down the pipe and I 'll probably part with it on Christmas.With each day of using my 360 ( I have it for about two years , no RROD ) I 'm getting more frustrated about its shortcomings : - Premium with 20gb is too small for just the demos not to mention installations and video content ( and 120gb will only help a little ) - no Wi-fi , the dongle is too expensive and is another part I have to carry/worry about when I 'm traveling- subscription to play online gamesthere is also the issue of controller charger ( had to buy one separately , bought a wrong one and its barely working ) and now that we have Slim , size ( for those that travel ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm getting the impression that I'm being fleeced every time I want to do something useful.
Maybe that PS3 isn't such a bad idea after all.It sure seems that way.
Thats why I checked what exclusives Xbox 360 has down the pipe and I'll probably part with it on Christmas.With each day of using my 360 (I have it for about two years, no RROD) I'm getting more frustrated about its shortcomings:- Premium with 20gb is too small for just the demos not to mention installations and video content (and 120gb will only help a little)- no Wi-fi, the dongle is too expensive and is another part I have to carry/worry about when I'm traveling- subscription to play online gamesthere is also the issue of controller charger (had to buy one separately, bought a wrong one and its barely working) and now that we have Slim, size (for those that travel) .
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799891</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800055</id>
	<title>Is is legal to remove functions after purchase?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255946580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is something I've been wondering about for a while with devices that receive software updates. People base their purchasing decisions on the list of features announced for the devices, the payoff of what features you get against the price. Then, as part of an upgrade, the manufacturer deliberately cripples part of the device and removes some functionality. This removal of support for third-party storage is a good example, or Amazon pushing an "update" to remove the text-to-speech feature for many (all?) books.
<br> <br>
There are all sorts of arguments made about software because we're typically sold licences, not an actual copy of the software. But in cases like this, we've actually bought a physical object. It's now ours, not the manufacturer's. So do they really still have the legal right to reach out an remove features? They advertised a function, which it now doesn't have. It feels like a sort of retroactive false advertising. A lot of Xbox owners will now need to spend extra money simply to restore the original functions; if they'd known this was necessary before purchase they might only have been willing to buy the XBox at a correspondingly lower price, if at all. So as MS have changed their end of this bargain, surely their customers should have the right to change theirs? A partial refund (to represent a lower original price) or the option of a full refund both seem fair to me,<br> <br>

I know people can, in principle, unplug their XBox to avoid accepting this update but then, again, they're losing the functionality that was originally advertised and that they originally paid for. Does this seem fair to anyone? Does it seem legal?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is something I 've been wondering about for a while with devices that receive software updates .
People base their purchasing decisions on the list of features announced for the devices , the payoff of what features you get against the price .
Then , as part of an upgrade , the manufacturer deliberately cripples part of the device and removes some functionality .
This removal of support for third-party storage is a good example , or Amazon pushing an " update " to remove the text-to-speech feature for many ( all ?
) books .
There are all sorts of arguments made about software because we 're typically sold licences , not an actual copy of the software .
But in cases like this , we 've actually bought a physical object .
It 's now ours , not the manufacturer 's .
So do they really still have the legal right to reach out an remove features ?
They advertised a function , which it now does n't have .
It feels like a sort of retroactive false advertising .
A lot of Xbox owners will now need to spend extra money simply to restore the original functions ; if they 'd known this was necessary before purchase they might only have been willing to buy the XBox at a correspondingly lower price , if at all .
So as MS have changed their end of this bargain , surely their customers should have the right to change theirs ?
A partial refund ( to represent a lower original price ) or the option of a full refund both seem fair to me , I know people can , in principle , unplug their XBox to avoid accepting this update but then , again , they 're losing the functionality that was originally advertised and that they originally paid for .
Does this seem fair to anyone ?
Does it seem legal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is something I've been wondering about for a while with devices that receive software updates.
People base their purchasing decisions on the list of features announced for the devices, the payoff of what features you get against the price.
Then, as part of an upgrade, the manufacturer deliberately cripples part of the device and removes some functionality.
This removal of support for third-party storage is a good example, or Amazon pushing an "update" to remove the text-to-speech feature for many (all?
) books.
There are all sorts of arguments made about software because we're typically sold licences, not an actual copy of the software.
But in cases like this, we've actually bought a physical object.
It's now ours, not the manufacturer's.
So do they really still have the legal right to reach out an remove features?
They advertised a function, which it now doesn't have.
It feels like a sort of retroactive false advertising.
A lot of Xbox owners will now need to spend extra money simply to restore the original functions; if they'd known this was necessary before purchase they might only have been willing to buy the XBox at a correspondingly lower price, if at all.
So as MS have changed their end of this bargain, surely their customers should have the right to change theirs?
A partial refund (to represent a lower original price) or the option of a full refund both seem fair to me, 

I know people can, in principle, unplug their XBox to avoid accepting this update but then, again, they're losing the functionality that was originally advertised and that they originally paid for.
Does this seem fair to anyone?
Does it seem legal?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800555</id>
	<title>Re:PS3..</title>
	<author>Absolut187</author>
	<datestamp>1255948860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sony has disabled the "other os" in recent updates.</p><p>But yes, the open hardware is nice.</p><p>I think MS is shooting themselves in the foot.<br>With this new MS cripple-ware, look at the true cost of the two systems:</p><p>PS3: 299.  Includes wi-fi, blu-ray, and 120GB hard drive.<br>Storage can be added with any USB drive.</p><p>360: 199.  Wireless is another $100.  No blu-ray.  No hard drive.<br>Forced to pay for M$ storage.</p><p>Which is a better deal?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sony has disabled the " other os " in recent updates.But yes , the open hardware is nice.I think MS is shooting themselves in the foot.With this new MS cripple-ware , look at the true cost of the two systems : PS3 : 299 .
Includes wi-fi , blu-ray , and 120GB hard drive.Storage can be added with any USB drive.360 : 199 .
Wireless is another $ 100 .
No blu-ray .
No hard drive.Forced to pay for M $ storage.Which is a better deal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sony has disabled the "other os" in recent updates.But yes, the open hardware is nice.I think MS is shooting themselves in the foot.With this new MS cripple-ware, look at the true cost of the two systems:PS3: 299.
Includes wi-fi, blu-ray, and 120GB hard drive.Storage can be added with any USB drive.360: 199.
Wireless is another $100.
No blu-ray.
No hard drive.Forced to pay for M$ storage.Which is a better deal?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799805</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29806163</id>
	<title>Re:Small Monthly Fees, Get Used to It</title>
	<author>Tweenk</author>
	<datestamp>1256044740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You don't "own" your cellphone, SIM card, or it's data. You simply rent it, for a "small monthly fee".</p></div><p>Speak for yourself. I own my phone, my SIM card, my data and my computer. It's you Americans who are enslaved by your own corporations.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't " own " your cellphone , SIM card , or it 's data .
You simply rent it , for a " small monthly fee " .Speak for yourself .
I own my phone , my SIM card , my data and my computer .
It 's you Americans who are enslaved by your own corporations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't "own" your cellphone, SIM card, or it's data.
You simply rent it, for a "small monthly fee".Speak for yourself.
I own my phone, my SIM card, my data and my computer.
It's you Americans who are enslaved by your own corporations.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799805</id>
	<title>PS3..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255945440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I recently bought a PS3 and despite what I've come to expect from Sony, it is probably more open than any other game console I've bought.  Use any bluetooth headset for voice chat, use any USB hard drive for storage, replace the internal hard drive with any one that fits, I think that's pretty cool.  I bought the older model and installed OpenSUSE 11.1 without much of a hitch, although 256MB of memory makes it pretty useless for most tasks.  The PS3 was happy to backup the hard drive contents to my iPod before I repartitioned it for the "Other OS" and I restored the contents just as easily.  You're right though, it's still nowhere near as open or as useful as a PC, but so many games come with system-bogging, glitch-prone DRM these days I tend to prefer the plug-n-play nature of a console.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I recently bought a PS3 and despite what I 've come to expect from Sony , it is probably more open than any other game console I 've bought .
Use any bluetooth headset for voice chat , use any USB hard drive for storage , replace the internal hard drive with any one that fits , I think that 's pretty cool .
I bought the older model and installed OpenSUSE 11.1 without much of a hitch , although 256MB of memory makes it pretty useless for most tasks .
The PS3 was happy to backup the hard drive contents to my iPod before I repartitioned it for the " Other OS " and I restored the contents just as easily .
You 're right though , it 's still nowhere near as open or as useful as a PC , but so many games come with system-bogging , glitch-prone DRM these days I tend to prefer the plug-n-play nature of a console .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recently bought a PS3 and despite what I've come to expect from Sony, it is probably more open than any other game console I've bought.
Use any bluetooth headset for voice chat, use any USB hard drive for storage, replace the internal hard drive with any one that fits, I think that's pretty cool.
I bought the older model and installed OpenSUSE 11.1 without much of a hitch, although 256MB of memory makes it pretty useless for most tasks.
The PS3 was happy to backup the hard drive contents to my iPod before I repartitioned it for the "Other OS" and I restored the contents just as easily.
You're right though, it's still nowhere near as open or as useful as a PC, but so many games come with system-bogging, glitch-prone DRM these days I tend to prefer the plug-n-play nature of a console.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802461</id>
	<title>Re:And the slant comes out</title>
	<author>\_Sprocket\_</author>
	<datestamp>1255959300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, sure.  Bait the rally of Apple fanbois.  But please note there are quite a few who didn't think apple blocking the Pre was a Good Thing either (but hey - that smacks of reason and it won't be as effective as bait).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , sure .
Bait the rally of Apple fanbois .
But please note there are quite a few who did n't think apple blocking the Pre was a Good Thing either ( but hey - that smacks of reason and it wo n't be as effective as bait ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, sure.
Bait the rally of Apple fanbois.
But please note there are quite a few who didn't think apple blocking the Pre was a Good Thing either (but hey - that smacks of reason and it won't be as effective as bait).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799869</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29807667</id>
	<title>Re:Small Monthly Fees, Get Used to It</title>
	<author>b4dc0d3r</author>
	<datestamp>1256052120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cell phones, Netflix, internet/voice/tv bundling, weight watchers, gyms... the business model has been shown to work well.  People like a set fee they can budget around, rather than having to save up for an initial outlay.  You can rent a cable modem for $5/mo or buy your own - lots of people think $5/mo is nothing, so they go for it.</p><p>It's not just technology, and people like it this way.  Go find something that doesn't have this business model, apply this model, and make a fortune.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cell phones , Netflix , internet/voice/tv bundling , weight watchers , gyms... the business model has been shown to work well .
People like a set fee they can budget around , rather than having to save up for an initial outlay .
You can rent a cable modem for $ 5/mo or buy your own - lots of people think $ 5/mo is nothing , so they go for it.It 's not just technology , and people like it this way .
Go find something that does n't have this business model , apply this model , and make a fortune .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cell phones, Netflix, internet/voice/tv bundling, weight watchers, gyms... the business model has been shown to work well.
People like a set fee they can budget around, rather than having to save up for an initial outlay.
You can rent a cable modem for $5/mo or buy your own - lots of people think $5/mo is nothing, so they go for it.It's not just technology, and people like it this way.
Go find something that doesn't have this business model, apply this model, and make a fortune.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800235</id>
	<title>Re:Audacious.</title>
	<author>bmajik</author>
	<datestamp>1255947300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[Disclaimer: I do not work for/near the xbox team or have any non-public knowledge about what they do or why they do it]</p><p>I'd guess the issue is about control of the content and experience.</p><p>Once you make it really easy for people to move data in and out of the "closed system" of the console and the playground of the PC, certain types of attacks become possible, and other types of attacks become much, much easier.  You might rightly say that that horse has left the barn, but i think it's an issue of bar-setting.  I know that it is possible to take the disks out of my old Xbox 1, unlock them, and party to my hearts content on those machines.  But as of yet i have not done so, as the time investment / reward ratios haven't been right.  The issue of "ease/convenience of compromise" is a legimate one when your goal isn't absolute theoretical security but is instead cloesr to "we can credibly tell our content partners their stuff is pretty safe, and our customer base is dominated by legit paying customers instead of people who are skirting the rules"</p><p>You may recall that one of the first successful attacks on the original Xbox was via the action replay device -- which basically let you get savegames on and off of the Xbox.  A memory-unit with an SD card that lets you do the same thing represents the same sort of attack vector and/or threat.</p><p>Furthremore, Microsoft is attempting (and at least partially succeeding) around building a digital content marketplace on the 360 platform.  Making it easy to get content out of that closed system into somewhere without oversight is not a goal.  Infact, keeping that content under wraps probably \_is\_ a goal.</p><p>So i'd wager that any 3rd party device that makes it easy to get content in/out of the 360 from the wild west of the PC is going to be discouraged by MS.</p><p>The popular wisdom [i.e. speculation] is that MS gets a bunch of revenue from everything except the 360 unit itself:<br>- software [Xbox has highest attach rate of any current console]<br>- peripherals [lots of these are MS 1st party and have a wide margin in them]<br>- and of course Xbox live [it is widely assumed that this service is wildly profitable, even with all the costs involved in keeping it going].</p><p>I don't think knocking out 3rd party MU's is to protect the profits of 1st party peripheral business -- i think it's to protect xbox live.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ Disclaimer : I do not work for/near the xbox team or have any non-public knowledge about what they do or why they do it ] I 'd guess the issue is about control of the content and experience.Once you make it really easy for people to move data in and out of the " closed system " of the console and the playground of the PC , certain types of attacks become possible , and other types of attacks become much , much easier .
You might rightly say that that horse has left the barn , but i think it 's an issue of bar-setting .
I know that it is possible to take the disks out of my old Xbox 1 , unlock them , and party to my hearts content on those machines .
But as of yet i have not done so , as the time investment / reward ratios have n't been right .
The issue of " ease/convenience of compromise " is a legimate one when your goal is n't absolute theoretical security but is instead cloesr to " we can credibly tell our content partners their stuff is pretty safe , and our customer base is dominated by legit paying customers instead of people who are skirting the rules " You may recall that one of the first successful attacks on the original Xbox was via the action replay device -- which basically let you get savegames on and off of the Xbox .
A memory-unit with an SD card that lets you do the same thing represents the same sort of attack vector and/or threat.Furthremore , Microsoft is attempting ( and at least partially succeeding ) around building a digital content marketplace on the 360 platform .
Making it easy to get content out of that closed system into somewhere without oversight is not a goal .
Infact , keeping that content under wraps probably \ _is \ _ a goal.So i 'd wager that any 3rd party device that makes it easy to get content in/out of the 360 from the wild west of the PC is going to be discouraged by MS.The popular wisdom [ i.e .
speculation ] is that MS gets a bunch of revenue from everything except the 360 unit itself : - software [ Xbox has highest attach rate of any current console ] - peripherals [ lots of these are MS 1st party and have a wide margin in them ] - and of course Xbox live [ it is widely assumed that this service is wildly profitable , even with all the costs involved in keeping it going ] .I do n't think knocking out 3rd party MU 's is to protect the profits of 1st party peripheral business -- i think it 's to protect xbox live .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[Disclaimer: I do not work for/near the xbox team or have any non-public knowledge about what they do or why they do it]I'd guess the issue is about control of the content and experience.Once you make it really easy for people to move data in and out of the "closed system" of the console and the playground of the PC, certain types of attacks become possible, and other types of attacks become much, much easier.
You might rightly say that that horse has left the barn, but i think it's an issue of bar-setting.
I know that it is possible to take the disks out of my old Xbox 1, unlock them, and party to my hearts content on those machines.
But as of yet i have not done so, as the time investment / reward ratios haven't been right.
The issue of "ease/convenience of compromise" is a legimate one when your goal isn't absolute theoretical security but is instead cloesr to "we can credibly tell our content partners their stuff is pretty safe, and our customer base is dominated by legit paying customers instead of people who are skirting the rules"You may recall that one of the first successful attacks on the original Xbox was via the action replay device -- which basically let you get savegames on and off of the Xbox.
A memory-unit with an SD card that lets you do the same thing represents the same sort of attack vector and/or threat.Furthremore, Microsoft is attempting (and at least partially succeeding) around building a digital content marketplace on the 360 platform.
Making it easy to get content out of that closed system into somewhere without oversight is not a goal.
Infact, keeping that content under wraps probably \_is\_ a goal.So i'd wager that any 3rd party device that makes it easy to get content in/out of the 360 from the wild west of the PC is going to be discouraged by MS.The popular wisdom [i.e.
speculation] is that MS gets a bunch of revenue from everything except the 360 unit itself:- software [Xbox has highest attach rate of any current console]- peripherals [lots of these are MS 1st party and have a wide margin in them]- and of course Xbox live [it is widely assumed that this service is wildly profitable, even with all the costs involved in keeping it going].I don't think knocking out 3rd party MU's is to protect the profits of 1st party peripheral business -- i think it's to protect xbox live.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802679</id>
	<title>Re:This will kill them</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255960620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All these arguments applied three years ago when the PS3 was released in North America. It didn't kill them back then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All these arguments applied three years ago when the PS3 was released in North America .
It did n't kill them back then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All these arguments applied three years ago when the PS3 was released in North America.
It didn't kill them back then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800011</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800661</id>
	<title>Re:Anti-competitive</title>
	<author>Mashiki</author>
	<datestamp>1255949220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know. It comes off as anti-competitive to me, back several years ago here in Ontario companies tried to void warranties for people having the work done on their vehicles at a shop other then the dealership.  The courts said it was anti-competitive and illegal.  Yelling and screaming ensued, life went on and got better for the customer.  Warranties were honored, and if you did the work yourself?  That's honored too as long as you keep the receipts.  Neat huh?</p><p>Using hardware is much akin to this.  Tell me where and what advantage is gained by having hardware you want installed into it?  I don't see it.  Not in the least. This is them attempting to milk the market and lock out competition in any form possible, and ensure 'compliance' with only one form of hardware within the market for their line of product.  Actually it's a lot closer to razor blades.  They give away the handle, and charge you $20 for the blades.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know .
It comes off as anti-competitive to me , back several years ago here in Ontario companies tried to void warranties for people having the work done on their vehicles at a shop other then the dealership .
The courts said it was anti-competitive and illegal .
Yelling and screaming ensued , life went on and got better for the customer .
Warranties were honored , and if you did the work yourself ?
That 's honored too as long as you keep the receipts .
Neat huh ? Using hardware is much akin to this .
Tell me where and what advantage is gained by having hardware you want installed into it ?
I do n't see it .
Not in the least .
This is them attempting to milk the market and lock out competition in any form possible , and ensure 'compliance ' with only one form of hardware within the market for their line of product .
Actually it 's a lot closer to razor blades .
They give away the handle , and charge you $ 20 for the blades .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know.
It comes off as anti-competitive to me, back several years ago here in Ontario companies tried to void warranties for people having the work done on their vehicles at a shop other then the dealership.
The courts said it was anti-competitive and illegal.
Yelling and screaming ensued, life went on and got better for the customer.
Warranties were honored, and if you did the work yourself?
That's honored too as long as you keep the receipts.
Neat huh?Using hardware is much akin to this.
Tell me where and what advantage is gained by having hardware you want installed into it?
I don't see it.
Not in the least.
This is them attempting to milk the market and lock out competition in any form possible, and ensure 'compliance' with only one form of hardware within the market for their line of product.
Actually it's a lot closer to razor blades.
They give away the handle, and charge you $20 for the blades.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29804235</id>
	<title>In other words, Ubik.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255975020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Coin operated apartment doors, showers, refrigerators, coffee makers, vacuum cleaners, everything you use on a regular basis. And the best part - They all bitch at you on their own when you fall behind on rent or whatever other periodic fee they have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Coin operated apartment doors , showers , refrigerators , coffee makers , vacuum cleaners , everything you use on a regular basis .
And the best part - They all bitch at you on their own when you fall behind on rent or whatever other periodic fee they have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Coin operated apartment doors, showers, refrigerators, coffee makers, vacuum cleaners, everything you use on a regular basis.
And the best part - They all bitch at you on their own when you fall behind on rent or whatever other periodic fee they have.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29804907</id>
	<title>Re:PS3..</title>
	<author>oddeirik</author>
	<datestamp>1256071080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any standard handsfree headset, huh?</p><p>How many wireless headsets are there for the Xbox 360 that doesn't require a dongle on the console or the controller?</p><p>What? How many? Oh, just the one from Microsoft. Hey, atleast you can use it as a standard headsfree handset for your cellphone or other devices? No? I see...</p><p>As for ripping music to the PS3, quite a few people do this, since they can throw in a 500 gig HD (for a lot less than the 120 gig MS disk).<br>Having the option of storing it as MP3 is very useful then, since you can easily transfer it to portable players.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any standard handsfree headset , huh ? How many wireless headsets are there for the Xbox 360 that does n't require a dongle on the console or the controller ? What ?
How many ?
Oh , just the one from Microsoft .
Hey , atleast you can use it as a standard headsfree handset for your cellphone or other devices ?
No ? I see...As for ripping music to the PS3 , quite a few people do this , since they can throw in a 500 gig HD ( for a lot less than the 120 gig MS disk ) .Having the option of storing it as MP3 is very useful then , since you can easily transfer it to portable players .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any standard handsfree headset, huh?How many wireless headsets are there for the Xbox 360 that doesn't require a dongle on the console or the controller?What?
How many?
Oh, just the one from Microsoft.
Hey, atleast you can use it as a standard headsfree handset for your cellphone or other devices?
No? I see...As for ripping music to the PS3, quite a few people do this, since they can throw in a 500 gig HD (for a lot less than the 120 gig MS disk).Having the option of storing it as MP3 is very useful then, since you can easily transfer it to portable players.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800647</id>
	<title>Re:Audacious.</title>
	<author>debrain</author>
	<datestamp>1255949160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree wholeheartedly and have an anecdote to boot.</p><p>I have an Xbox 360. I copied Mass Effect onto the Xbox 360 so that it would load and run faster. I then proceeded to 'rent' a movie (Troy) in HD. It took around 30 minutes to be able to get Xbox to accept one of my credit cards (incidentally no feedback was ever given as to why it was rejecting them). Finally, the Xbox accepted a credit card I rented the movie and it refused to download because I lacked space. So I started deleting all the "little" games and so on from the Xbox (i.e. everything but Mass Effect, because I didn't want to have to wait to load the whole game back on there). Deleting all the little games took around 30 minutes because you have to individually delete every game through the user interface, and there apparently was a plethora pre-installed (how hard is a "delete every game I've never used" button?). I finally conceded that I would have to delete Mass Effect in order to be able to fit Troy onto the 20GB hard drive (this became apparent only after I had paid for the movie).</p><p>As a result of my experience, I bought a PS3 and get all my content through that. The Xbox collects dust. I'll never download another movie through Xbox again, and it's actually fairly unlikely it'll ever be turned on again. Had the Xbox come with a bigger hard drive (who even makes 20GB hard drives? honestly.), or it been cheap to get an external drive, I may have just kept using it instead of getting the PS3.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree wholeheartedly and have an anecdote to boot.I have an Xbox 360 .
I copied Mass Effect onto the Xbox 360 so that it would load and run faster .
I then proceeded to 'rent ' a movie ( Troy ) in HD .
It took around 30 minutes to be able to get Xbox to accept one of my credit cards ( incidentally no feedback was ever given as to why it was rejecting them ) .
Finally , the Xbox accepted a credit card I rented the movie and it refused to download because I lacked space .
So I started deleting all the " little " games and so on from the Xbox ( i.e .
everything but Mass Effect , because I did n't want to have to wait to load the whole game back on there ) .
Deleting all the little games took around 30 minutes because you have to individually delete every game through the user interface , and there apparently was a plethora pre-installed ( how hard is a " delete every game I 've never used " button ? ) .
I finally conceded that I would have to delete Mass Effect in order to be able to fit Troy onto the 20GB hard drive ( this became apparent only after I had paid for the movie ) .As a result of my experience , I bought a PS3 and get all my content through that .
The Xbox collects dust .
I 'll never download another movie through Xbox again , and it 's actually fairly unlikely it 'll ever be turned on again .
Had the Xbox come with a bigger hard drive ( who even makes 20GB hard drives ?
honestly. ) , or it been cheap to get an external drive , I may have just kept using it instead of getting the PS3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree wholeheartedly and have an anecdote to boot.I have an Xbox 360.
I copied Mass Effect onto the Xbox 360 so that it would load and run faster.
I then proceeded to 'rent' a movie (Troy) in HD.
It took around 30 minutes to be able to get Xbox to accept one of my credit cards (incidentally no feedback was ever given as to why it was rejecting them).
Finally, the Xbox accepted a credit card I rented the movie and it refused to download because I lacked space.
So I started deleting all the "little" games and so on from the Xbox (i.e.
everything but Mass Effect, because I didn't want to have to wait to load the whole game back on there).
Deleting all the little games took around 30 minutes because you have to individually delete every game through the user interface, and there apparently was a plethora pre-installed (how hard is a "delete every game I've never used" button?).
I finally conceded that I would have to delete Mass Effect in order to be able to fit Troy onto the 20GB hard drive (this became apparent only after I had paid for the movie).As a result of my experience, I bought a PS3 and get all my content through that.
The Xbox collects dust.
I'll never download another movie through Xbox again, and it's actually fairly unlikely it'll ever be turned on again.
Had the Xbox come with a bigger hard drive (who even makes 20GB hard drives?
honestly.), or it been cheap to get an external drive, I may have just kept using it instead of getting the PS3.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799891</id>
	<title>Re:Audacious.</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1255945800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed. A 512 MB card shouldn't cost more than $5 right now, while a 2G card should be under $20. They're nickel and diming their customers in the wrong places. If I could buy a nice 100 GB hard disk for $50, I would not only spring for that, but also download far more content - which in turn would drive up my perceived value of the system.</p><p>Instead, I'm getting the impression that I'm being fleeced every time I want to do something useful. Maybe that PS3 isn't such a bad idea after all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed .
A 512 MB card should n't cost more than $ 5 right now , while a 2G card should be under $ 20 .
They 're nickel and diming their customers in the wrong places .
If I could buy a nice 100 GB hard disk for $ 50 , I would not only spring for that , but also download far more content - which in turn would drive up my perceived value of the system.Instead , I 'm getting the impression that I 'm being fleeced every time I want to do something useful .
Maybe that PS3 is n't such a bad idea after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.
A 512 MB card shouldn't cost more than $5 right now, while a 2G card should be under $20.
They're nickel and diming their customers in the wrong places.
If I could buy a nice 100 GB hard disk for $50, I would not only spring for that, but also download far more content - which in turn would drive up my perceived value of the system.Instead, I'm getting the impression that I'm being fleeced every time I want to do something useful.
Maybe that PS3 isn't such a bad idea after all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29804093</id>
	<title>Re:Audacious.</title>
	<author>Grieviant</author>
	<datestamp>1255973040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yup.  Not only that, but they've been making bank on shoddy wired controllers for a couple years now.  It's fairly well known (by people who would actually notice) that the official Microsoft wired controller has an alarmingly high defect rate, the main problem being "slow turn" with the analog sticks.  Basically, even if the stick is pushed all the way over in a certain direction, the reticle transitions very slowly on screen, thus rendering the controller severely impaired for FPS play.  I'm talking out-of-the-box failures in many cases, not just typical wear and tear over time.  The problem has been noticed most widely in Halo 3 (possibly exacerbated by the "aim acceleration" Bungie uses in its aiming system), but it's also been documented for other shooters. </p><p>The problem has been known about for years, but, unlike with the 360 mainboard revisions, MS has done nothing to address it.  They continue to sell the identical piece of defective hardware, and I've heard of people spending several hundred dollars on controllers alone because wired is the only option for LAN play at most tournaments.  Companies like MyCustomXbox have parlayed this into a business opportunity for themselves by selling "no-slow" wired controllers with an apparent hardware fix. </p><p>Their strategy for making up the loses due to selling the console below cost + the RRoD fiasco is becoming apparent - sell crappy, mandatory peripherals at inflated prices. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup .
Not only that , but they 've been making bank on shoddy wired controllers for a couple years now .
It 's fairly well known ( by people who would actually notice ) that the official Microsoft wired controller has an alarmingly high defect rate , the main problem being " slow turn " with the analog sticks .
Basically , even if the stick is pushed all the way over in a certain direction , the reticle transitions very slowly on screen , thus rendering the controller severely impaired for FPS play .
I 'm talking out-of-the-box failures in many cases , not just typical wear and tear over time .
The problem has been noticed most widely in Halo 3 ( possibly exacerbated by the " aim acceleration " Bungie uses in its aiming system ) , but it 's also been documented for other shooters .
The problem has been known about for years , but , unlike with the 360 mainboard revisions , MS has done nothing to address it .
They continue to sell the identical piece of defective hardware , and I 've heard of people spending several hundred dollars on controllers alone because wired is the only option for LAN play at most tournaments .
Companies like MyCustomXbox have parlayed this into a business opportunity for themselves by selling " no-slow " wired controllers with an apparent hardware fix .
Their strategy for making up the loses due to selling the console below cost + the RRoD fiasco is becoming apparent - sell crappy , mandatory peripherals at inflated prices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup.
Not only that, but they've been making bank on shoddy wired controllers for a couple years now.
It's fairly well known (by people who would actually notice) that the official Microsoft wired controller has an alarmingly high defect rate, the main problem being "slow turn" with the analog sticks.
Basically, even if the stick is pushed all the way over in a certain direction, the reticle transitions very slowly on screen, thus rendering the controller severely impaired for FPS play.
I'm talking out-of-the-box failures in many cases, not just typical wear and tear over time.
The problem has been noticed most widely in Halo 3 (possibly exacerbated by the "aim acceleration" Bungie uses in its aiming system), but it's also been documented for other shooters.
The problem has been known about for years, but, unlike with the 360 mainboard revisions, MS has done nothing to address it.
They continue to sell the identical piece of defective hardware, and I've heard of people spending several hundred dollars on controllers alone because wired is the only option for LAN play at most tournaments.
Companies like MyCustomXbox have parlayed this into a business opportunity for themselves by selling "no-slow" wired controllers with an apparent hardware fix.
Their strategy for making up the loses due to selling the console below cost + the RRoD fiasco is becoming apparent - sell crappy, mandatory peripherals at inflated prices. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799891</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801949</id>
	<title>Re:Trash the X-box ... Starcraft 2 will be here so</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255956180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you call a PC an open source gaming system. last I checked you still had to run windows to get the majority of games released and MS is not open source. oh and have fun playing starcraft 2 with no lan support.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you call a PC an open source gaming system .
last I checked you still had to run windows to get the majority of games released and MS is not open source .
oh and have fun playing starcraft 2 with no lan support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you call a PC an open source gaming system.
last I checked you still had to run windows to get the majority of games released and MS is not open source.
oh and have fun playing starcraft 2 with no lan support.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801925</id>
	<title>Love You Free Market</title>
	<author>isochroma</author>
	<datestamp>1255956000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Monopoly Capitali$m at its finest.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Monopoly Capitali $ m at its finest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Monopoly Capitali$m at its finest.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800477</id>
	<title>Re:Is is legal to remove functions after purchase?</title>
	<author>mr\_lizard13</author>
	<datestamp>1255948440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You don't have to upgrade.

I think when you turn-on the auto update feature, there is probably some small print in there somewhere saying that features might be modified.

After all, if you are happy to accept updates, surely that means you are happy to accept that modifications will be made to your product? Or... why would you accept updates?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't have to upgrade .
I think when you turn-on the auto update feature , there is probably some small print in there somewhere saying that features might be modified .
After all , if you are happy to accept updates , surely that means you are happy to accept that modifications will be made to your product ?
Or... why would you accept updates ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't have to upgrade.
I think when you turn-on the auto update feature, there is probably some small print in there somewhere saying that features might be modified.
After all, if you are happy to accept updates, surely that means you are happy to accept that modifications will be made to your product?
Or... why would you accept updates?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801325</id>
	<title>Re:PS3..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255952760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Xbox 360 allows you to use any standard handsfree headset and any standard USB drive for storing media. They only restrict the game accessible media.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Xbox 360 allows you to use any standard handsfree headset and any standard USB drive for storing media .
They only restrict the game accessible media .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Xbox 360 allows you to use any standard handsfree headset and any standard USB drive for storing media.
They only restrict the game accessible media.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799805</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802743</id>
	<title>Re:The Pre could have used supported APIs.</title>
	<author>Sloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1255961040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>People expect publishers to lock out hacks.</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm glad I don't live on the same planet as you.  The people on <em>your</em> planet are seriously fucked up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People expect publishers to lock out hacks.I 'm glad I do n't live on the same planet as you .
The people on your planet are seriously fucked up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People expect publishers to lock out hacks.I'm glad I don't live on the same planet as you.
The people on your planet are seriously fucked up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802683</id>
	<title>Re:Trash the X-box ... Starcraft 2 will be here so</title>
	<author>El\_Oscuro</author>
	<datestamp>1255960620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have already got one running <a href="http://www.pc2jamma.org/" title="pc2jamma.org">Lincade</a> [pc2jamma.org]. Between the cabinet, the Wells/Gardener 30" monitor and HAPP controls, I have got some serious $DOUGH$ invested in the hardware.  No console runs these games like this, and even the coin slot works!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have already got one running Lincade [ pc2jamma.org ] .
Between the cabinet , the Wells/Gardener 30 " monitor and HAPP controls , I have got some serious $ DOUGH $ invested in the hardware .
No console runs these games like this , and even the coin slot works !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have already got one running Lincade [pc2jamma.org].
Between the cabinet, the Wells/Gardener 30" monitor and HAPP controls, I have got some serious $DOUGH$ invested in the hardware.
No console runs these games like this, and even the coin slot works!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29809957</id>
	<title>That's OK</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1256059980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At 52\% failure rate within a year of purchase, the Xbox360 is practically garbage (not to mention that it likes to cut nice deep grooves in your media, if you look at ti wring). So if you bought one, it's only fair that you get a bum deal, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At 52 \ % failure rate within a year of purchase , the Xbox360 is practically garbage ( not to mention that it likes to cut nice deep grooves in your media , if you look at ti wring ) .
So if you bought one , it 's only fair that you get a bum deal , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At 52\% failure rate within a year of purchase, the Xbox360 is practically garbage (not to mention that it likes to cut nice deep grooves in your media, if you look at ti wring).
So if you bought one, it's only fair that you get a bum deal, too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800661
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801175
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29844477
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800793
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800221
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29807667
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29804625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29808547
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800683
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802683
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29811933
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29821185
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29805907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29811891
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802065
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801001
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29808207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29805761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801931
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799411
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800265
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29803381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802747
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29828903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799411
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29810437
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29808815
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29804911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29808693
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800249
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802489
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29806163
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29806399
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29811249
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29808565
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29803167
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29805121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29804355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800393
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29809495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29809567
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29804379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800807
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29883165
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802679
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801405
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29812359
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29804235
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800477
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29804907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29808625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29804093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801073
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800647
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801799
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29805673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799411
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802345
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_1959249_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_1959249.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800439
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29804379
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29811891
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_1959249.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800845
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_1959249.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800011
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802679
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29809495
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801409
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800949
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29805673
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802971
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29803381
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29806399
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_1959249.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799411
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799483
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799601
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800265
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800873
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29810437
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802345
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_1959249.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29804911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29808693
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_1959249.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799661
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800025
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29828903
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800661
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29808815
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799855
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800393
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_1959249.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799869
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800221
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801931
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802461
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800333
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29803167
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802743
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800249
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_1959249.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29805845
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_1959249.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799955
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_1959249.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800203
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_1959249.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800095
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29811933
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29805761
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29812359
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_1959249.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802181
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_1959249.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800083
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29809567
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29805907
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802489
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801073
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29807667
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29806163
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802303
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29844477
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802091
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29804235
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802747
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29805121
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_1959249.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800055
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802493
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29804355
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800563
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800477
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801799
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29808625
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801001
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_1959249.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799641
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801589
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29808565
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29821185
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29883165
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799831
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29808207
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801745
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801405
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800793
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799891
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29804093
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29804625
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800683
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800235
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802937
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800413
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801241
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800647
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_1959249.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799971
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29811249
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801175
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802427
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802065
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_1959249.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799667
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801839
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799839
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29799805
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801325
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29804907
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800555
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801883
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29808547
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800807
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800371
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29802683
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29801949
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_1959249.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_1959249.29800505
</commentlist>
</conversation>
