<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_04_2345244</id>
	<title>Google Betas Chrome 4, Touts 30\% Speed Boost</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1257346380000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>CWmike writes <i>"Google upgraded the beta version (4.0.223.16) of its Chrome browser yesterday, <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9140311/Google\_adds\_bookmark\_sync\_to\_Chrome\_browser">boasting a 30\% speed improvement over the current production edition</a> and adding integrated bookmark synchronization. Developers Idan Avraham and Anton Muhin, who announced the release, tout Chrome 4.0's faster JavaScript rendering speeds. 'We've improved performance scores on Google Chrome by 30\% since our current stable release, and by 400\% since our first stable release,' they said, referring to Chrome 3.0. The new beta includes the ability to sync bookmarked sites across multiple computers."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>CWmike writes " Google upgraded the beta version ( 4.0.223.16 ) of its Chrome browser yesterday , boasting a 30 \ % speed improvement over the current production edition and adding integrated bookmark synchronization .
Developers Idan Avraham and Anton Muhin , who announced the release , tout Chrome 4.0 's faster JavaScript rendering speeds .
'We 've improved performance scores on Google Chrome by 30 \ % since our current stable release , and by 400 \ % since our first stable release, ' they said , referring to Chrome 3.0 .
The new beta includes the ability to sync bookmarked sites across multiple computers .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CWmike writes "Google upgraded the beta version (4.0.223.16) of its Chrome browser yesterday, boasting a 30\% speed improvement over the current production edition and adding integrated bookmark synchronization.
Developers Idan Avraham and Anton Muhin, who announced the release, tout Chrome 4.0's faster JavaScript rendering speeds.
'We've improved performance scores on Google Chrome by 30\% since our current stable release, and by 400\% since our first stable release,' they said, referring to Chrome 3.0.
The new beta includes the ability to sync bookmarked sites across multiple computers.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991942</id>
	<title>This is cool though..</title>
	<author>Cprossu</author>
	<datestamp>1257453180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Innovation in faster page loading never ceases to amaze me.. I mean back in the day, Netscape was lightning fast compared to other browsers, and if I dig up an old build of of navigator I find it unbearably slow compared to firefox, or other new browsers out, not to mention surprisingly unstable.<br>I am happy because this kind of thing is what spurs competition on and leaves us without stale old browsers, even though I am not a chrome user myself, the effects of it are already being felt and features added onto our browsers of preference. Go Google!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Innovation in faster page loading never ceases to amaze me.. I mean back in the day , Netscape was lightning fast compared to other browsers , and if I dig up an old build of of navigator I find it unbearably slow compared to firefox , or other new browsers out , not to mention surprisingly unstable.I am happy because this kind of thing is what spurs competition on and leaves us without stale old browsers , even though I am not a chrome user myself , the effects of it are already being felt and features added onto our browsers of preference .
Go Google !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Innovation in faster page loading never ceases to amaze me.. I mean back in the day, Netscape was lightning fast compared to other browsers, and if I dig up an old build of of navigator I find it unbearably slow compared to firefox, or other new browsers out, not to mention surprisingly unstable.I am happy because this kind of thing is what spurs competition on and leaves us without stale old browsers, even though I am not a chrome user myself, the effects of it are already being felt and features added onto our browsers of preference.
Go Google!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29992100</id>
	<title>Re:Is it 30\% faster? Does it matter?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257412500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you still back in the stone age? Yes, it does matter, alot. Because more and more applications are moving to the web (as a platform), JS processing does matter. If you are still back at the plain html static pages then ofcourse this doesn't mean much to you. JS engine was on a standby for so many years and there was so much place for improvements, and this is what's chaning now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you still back in the stone age ?
Yes , it does matter , alot .
Because more and more applications are moving to the web ( as a platform ) , JS processing does matter .
If you are still back at the plain html static pages then ofcourse this does n't mean much to you .
JS engine was on a standby for so many years and there was so much place for improvements , and this is what 's chaning now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you still back in the stone age?
Yes, it does matter, alot.
Because more and more applications are moving to the web (as a platform), JS processing does matter.
If you are still back at the plain html static pages then ofcourse this doesn't mean much to you.
JS engine was on a standby for so many years and there was so much place for improvements, and this is what's chaning now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29994640</id>
	<title>Re:Is it 30\% faster? Does it matter?</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1257435600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google wants to sell Javascript based apps. Google Docs. Wave. And in future, even more demanding stuff.</p><p>They needed browsers with faster JS and faster dynamic rendering. The market wasn't doing it for them. So they did it themselves.</p><p>It wouldn't surprise me if Wave wasn't the primary driver for Chrome. "Hey, we've got this cool app, but it's going to run like a dog on most people's browsers. How can we fix that?".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google wants to sell Javascript based apps .
Google Docs .
Wave. And in future , even more demanding stuff.They needed browsers with faster JS and faster dynamic rendering .
The market was n't doing it for them .
So they did it themselves.It would n't surprise me if Wave was n't the primary driver for Chrome .
" Hey , we 've got this cool app , but it 's going to run like a dog on most people 's browsers .
How can we fix that ?
" .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google wants to sell Javascript based apps.
Google Docs.
Wave. And in future, even more demanding stuff.They needed browsers with faster JS and faster dynamic rendering.
The market wasn't doing it for them.
So they did it themselves.It wouldn't surprise me if Wave wasn't the primary driver for Chrome.
"Hey, we've got this cool app, but it's going to run like a dog on most people's browsers.
How can we fix that?
".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991792</id>
	<title>Re:Password Sync also please</title>
	<author>Korin43</author>
	<datestamp>1257451200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Xmarks is actually extremely slow and bloated. You should try Weave..</htmltext>
<tokenext>Xmarks is actually extremely slow and bloated .
You should try Weave. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Xmarks is actually extremely slow and bloated.
You should try Weave..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991886</id>
	<title>Re:Password Sync also please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257452520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Coming? going to work? How old is this article?</p><p>I am currently using chrome 4.0.229.1 on OSX with xmarks working great (No passwords yet though).</p><p>Adblock also works dandy (Though i had to use the one previous version, any extension that relies on putting an icon in your tool bar doesn't work on OSX it seems)</p><p>http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/eula\_dev.html?dl=mac for chrome</p><p>http://www.chromeextensions.org/appearance-functioning/adblock/ (or whatever other extensions you want)</p><p>Xmarks you need to get through the Xmarks website but a quick google tells you what you need to know. Enjoy!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Coming ?
going to work ?
How old is this article ? I am currently using chrome 4.0.229.1 on OSX with xmarks working great ( No passwords yet though ) .Adblock also works dandy ( Though i had to use the one previous version , any extension that relies on putting an icon in your tool bar does n't work on OSX it seems ) http : //www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/eula \ _dev.html ? dl = mac for chromehttp : //www.chromeextensions.org/appearance-functioning/adblock/ ( or whatever other extensions you want ) Xmarks you need to get through the Xmarks website but a quick google tells you what you need to know .
Enjoy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Coming?
going to work?
How old is this article?I am currently using chrome 4.0.229.1 on OSX with xmarks working great (No passwords yet though).Adblock also works dandy (Though i had to use the one previous version, any extension that relies on putting an icon in your tool bar doesn't work on OSX it seems)http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/eula\_dev.html?dl=mac for chromehttp://www.chromeextensions.org/appearance-functioning/adblock/ (or whatever other extensions you want)Xmarks you need to get through the Xmarks website but a quick google tells you what you need to know.
Enjoy!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991582</id>
	<title>Re:60\% faster loss of privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257017040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do you think the bookmarks are synced? It could use magic unicorns but I'm guessing it uses a Google server.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you think the bookmarks are synced ?
It could use magic unicorns but I 'm guessing it uses a Google server .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you think the bookmarks are synced?
It could use magic unicorns but I'm guessing it uses a Google server.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991394</id>
	<title>Getting faster with each new release...</title>
	<author>pckl300</author>
	<datestamp>1257015060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Chrome apparently gets faster with each new release. After a few more releases, the browser will open before you even click the icon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Chrome apparently gets faster with each new release .
After a few more releases , the browser will open before you even click the icon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chrome apparently gets faster with each new release.
After a few more releases, the browser will open before you even click the icon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29993980</id>
	<title>Re:60\% faster loss of privacy</title>
	<author>tolan-b</author>
	<datestamp>1257432000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where do you think they keep the bookmarks to allow you to sync them? Hint: it's not in the browser.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where do you think they keep the bookmarks to allow you to sync them ?
Hint : it 's not in the browser .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where do you think they keep the bookmarks to allow you to sync them?
Hint: it's not in the browser.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990200</id>
	<title>Cheating on my first love - Firefox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257005220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I so loved Firefox and use to tell everyone to use it.  I loved that it kicked IE's ass.  Gotta love any open source project that goes up against Microsoft and wins.</p><p>As much as I hate to admit it, I can no longer stand to use Firefox.  Like a slut that wins you over with fantastic sex, Chrome got me where it matters most - raw speed.</p><p>In fact, it seems way too fast.  Is Google caching the web pages in a nearby Google server?  Even sites that use little JavaScript seem to load really fast.  Is something going on here?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I so loved Firefox and use to tell everyone to use it .
I loved that it kicked IE 's ass .
Got ta love any open source project that goes up against Microsoft and wins.As much as I hate to admit it , I can no longer stand to use Firefox .
Like a slut that wins you over with fantastic sex , Chrome got me where it matters most - raw speed.In fact , it seems way too fast .
Is Google caching the web pages in a nearby Google server ?
Even sites that use little JavaScript seem to load really fast .
Is something going on here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I so loved Firefox and use to tell everyone to use it.
I loved that it kicked IE's ass.
Gotta love any open source project that goes up against Microsoft and wins.As much as I hate to admit it, I can no longer stand to use Firefox.
Like a slut that wins you over with fantastic sex, Chrome got me where it matters most - raw speed.In fact, it seems way too fast.
Is Google caching the web pages in a nearby Google server?
Even sites that use little JavaScript seem to load really fast.
Is something going on here?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29993978</id>
	<title>Re:60\% faster loss of privacy</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1257432000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly. Especially the biggest advertiser on the Internet: Google!</p><p>No wonder they don't include an ad-blocker!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
Especially the biggest advertiser on the Internet : Google ! No wonder they do n't include an ad-blocker !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
Especially the biggest advertiser on the Internet: Google!No wonder they don't include an ad-blocker!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991988</id>
	<title>Re:Smoking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257454020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The question is "why can't Firefox perform as well as Chrome?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The question is " why ca n't Firefox perform as well as Chrome ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question is "why can't Firefox perform as well as Chrome?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991950</id>
	<title>Chrome's Issues</title>
	<author>Stan Vassilev</author>
	<datestamp>1257453300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's great how fast it is, but it also eats ridiculous amount of RAM. It easily can take 100MB per tab on popular sites.<br> <br>

It's hard to notice on machines with 3GB RAM or more, but after I moved some people with more modest configurations from Firefox to Chrome, they started experiencing heavy swapping and constant PC slowdowns. And as we know, when your PC is swapping, any other performance optimization pales in comparison.<br> <br>

Another major blow for Chrome is its plugin performance. Visiting a site with Flash is sure to kill any decent performance you're experiencing with Chrome, never mind your CPU or RAM. Even sites like YouTube, where other browsers have zero problems.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's great how fast it is , but it also eats ridiculous amount of RAM .
It easily can take 100MB per tab on popular sites .
It 's hard to notice on machines with 3GB RAM or more , but after I moved some people with more modest configurations from Firefox to Chrome , they started experiencing heavy swapping and constant PC slowdowns .
And as we know , when your PC is swapping , any other performance optimization pales in comparison .
Another major blow for Chrome is its plugin performance .
Visiting a site with Flash is sure to kill any decent performance you 're experiencing with Chrome , never mind your CPU or RAM .
Even sites like YouTube , where other browsers have zero problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's great how fast it is, but it also eats ridiculous amount of RAM.
It easily can take 100MB per tab on popular sites.
It's hard to notice on machines with 3GB RAM or more, but after I moved some people with more modest configurations from Firefox to Chrome, they started experiencing heavy swapping and constant PC slowdowns.
And as we know, when your PC is swapping, any other performance optimization pales in comparison.
Another major blow for Chrome is its plugin performance.
Visiting a site with Flash is sure to kill any decent performance you're experiencing with Chrome, never mind your CPU or RAM.
Even sites like YouTube, where other browsers have zero problems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.30001344</id>
	<title>Re:Password Sync also please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257423180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bookmarks and passwords are each stored in a simple file in your profile directory. You can't figure out some way to sync those files other than waiting for it to be implemented within the browser? There's still a whole OS and collection of applications under there, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bookmarks and passwords are each stored in a simple file in your profile directory .
You ca n't figure out some way to sync those files other than waiting for it to be implemented within the browser ?
There 's still a whole OS and collection of applications under there , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bookmarks and passwords are each stored in a simple file in your profile directory.
You can't figure out some way to sync those files other than waiting for it to be implemented within the browser?
There's still a whole OS and collection of applications under there, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29994872</id>
	<title>Re:Password Sync also please</title>
	<author>webheaded</author>
	<datestamp>1257436800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was going to say that too.  I also really hope Google comes up with their own version of Weave.  Of course, the idealist in me also kind of hopes I can actually use Weave in Chrome so that all my stuff is synced up because that, my friend, would be AWESOME.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was going to say that too .
I also really hope Google comes up with their own version of Weave .
Of course , the idealist in me also kind of hopes I can actually use Weave in Chrome so that all my stuff is synced up because that , my friend , would be AWESOME .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was going to say that too.
I also really hope Google comes up with their own version of Weave.
Of course, the idealist in me also kind of hopes I can actually use Weave in Chrome so that all my stuff is synced up because that, my friend, would be AWESOME.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990910</id>
	<title>Re:Cheating on my first love - Firefox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257010800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The ridiculousness of this post is, of course, that webkit is getting features at a crazy pace, mostly driven by Apple wanting to get as much native support for stuff that could be done in javascript (so it runs fast on the iphone), and everyone else (google, apple, etc etc) who is behind the "html5!!" drumbeat.</p><p>look at bugzilla for webkit and you'll see an even match for mozilla in terms of adding features. you'll see the same parity (or worse) in RAM and CPU time (what happened to the decrying of process/tab?).</p><p>now, there is a much better argument to be made about gecko's antiquated architecture. webkit's source is a joy to browse, comparatively. there are several kitchen sinks in webkit, but someone did a nice refactor and they all derive from one water-dispensing receptacle superclass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ridiculousness of this post is , of course , that webkit is getting features at a crazy pace , mostly driven by Apple wanting to get as much native support for stuff that could be done in javascript ( so it runs fast on the iphone ) , and everyone else ( google , apple , etc etc ) who is behind the " html5 ! !
" drumbeat.look at bugzilla for webkit and you 'll see an even match for mozilla in terms of adding features .
you 'll see the same parity ( or worse ) in RAM and CPU time ( what happened to the decrying of process/tab ?
) .now , there is a much better argument to be made about gecko 's antiquated architecture .
webkit 's source is a joy to browse , comparatively .
there are several kitchen sinks in webkit , but someone did a nice refactor and they all derive from one water-dispensing receptacle superclass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ridiculousness of this post is, of course, that webkit is getting features at a crazy pace, mostly driven by Apple wanting to get as much native support for stuff that could be done in javascript (so it runs fast on the iphone), and everyone else (google, apple, etc etc) who is behind the "html5!!
" drumbeat.look at bugzilla for webkit and you'll see an even match for mozilla in terms of adding features.
you'll see the same parity (or worse) in RAM and CPU time (what happened to the decrying of process/tab?
).now, there is a much better argument to be made about gecko's antiquated architecture.
webkit's source is a joy to browse, comparatively.
there are several kitchen sinks in webkit, but someone did a nice refactor and they all derive from one water-dispensing receptacle superclass.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29993944</id>
	<title>Re:Smoking -bah hum bug!</title>
	<author>James\_Duncan8181</author>
	<datestamp>1257431820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Dude, it could give me a handjob while it loaded my porn for me, but until it runs on a OS not made by MS, I don't care."</p><p>This would make me write pretty much any WINE patches required.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Dude , it could give me a handjob while it loaded my porn for me , but until it runs on a OS not made by MS , I do n't care .
" This would make me write pretty much any WINE patches required .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Dude, it could give me a handjob while it loaded my porn for me, but until it runs on a OS not made by MS, I don't care.
"This would make me write pretty much any WINE patches required.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29993304</id>
	<title>Re:Is it 30\% faster? Does it matter?</title>
	<author>carvalhao</author>
	<datestamp>1257426780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you haven't noticed, Google is making a huge effort to replace everything you should want on a computer with a Javascript webapp. Believe me, in time, Javascript raw speed will be pivotal to their hability to sell online services.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have n't noticed , Google is making a huge effort to replace everything you should want on a computer with a Javascript webapp .
Believe me , in time , Javascript raw speed will be pivotal to their hability to sell online services .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you haven't noticed, Google is making a huge effort to replace everything you should want on a computer with a Javascript webapp.
Believe me, in time, Javascript raw speed will be pivotal to their hability to sell online services.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991422</id>
	<title>Re:How about</title>
	<author>LordLimecat</author>
	<datestamp>1257015360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>See every other comment, and every other post on chrome, which mentions that version 4 (available now thru dev channel) has extensions already.</htmltext>
<tokenext>See every other comment , and every other post on chrome , which mentions that version 4 ( available now thru dev channel ) has extensions already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See every other comment, and every other post on chrome, which mentions that version 4 (available now thru dev channel) has extensions already.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29994706</id>
	<title>I wish that they could focus all the energy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257435900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>on making Android a bit more snappy.  Really like the OS but its laggy from time to time (even on the newer hardware).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>on making Android a bit more snappy .
Really like the OS but its laggy from time to time ( even on the newer hardware ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>on making Android a bit more snappy.
Really like the OS but its laggy from time to time (even on the newer hardware).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29994002</id>
	<title>Re:60\% faster loss of privacy</title>
	<author>LifesABeach</author>
	<datestamp>1257432060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Browser source would look pretty straight forward.  As for the Server side, that traffic and content recording capability would be straight forward also.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Browser source would look pretty straight forward .
As for the Server side , that traffic and content recording capability would be straight forward also .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Browser source would look pretty straight forward.
As for the Server side, that traffic and content recording capability would be straight forward also.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29993098</id>
	<title>Re:Password Sync also please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257424260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except the extension API is laughable compared to that of Firefox, because chrome's UI is hardcoded.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except the extension API is laughable compared to that of Firefox , because chrome 's UI is hardcoded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except the extension API is laughable compared to that of Firefox, because chrome's UI is hardcoded.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991948</id>
	<title>Re:60\% faster loss of privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257453300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are a sucky <b> dick!!! </b> hahaha!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are a sucky dick ! ! !
hahaha ! ! ! !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are a sucky  dick!!!
hahaha!!!!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.30026604</id>
	<title>Re:Cheating on my first love - Firefox</title>
	<author>DaVince21</author>
	<datestamp>1257684780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They did sandbox JS to the best of their efforts, though, especially since each tab is a process on its own that can't access the other ones (by conventional means, anyway). Me, I'd miss JS as tons of sites now make good use for it (like AJAX pages) and there are other practical uses coming for it (interactive SVG, that browser 3D thing Google is making).</p><p>If there's a need, I'm sure an automatic JS blocker extension will be written eventually for Chrome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They did sandbox JS to the best of their efforts , though , especially since each tab is a process on its own that ca n't access the other ones ( by conventional means , anyway ) .
Me , I 'd miss JS as tons of sites now make good use for it ( like AJAX pages ) and there are other practical uses coming for it ( interactive SVG , that browser 3D thing Google is making ) .If there 's a need , I 'm sure an automatic JS blocker extension will be written eventually for Chrome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They did sandbox JS to the best of their efforts, though, especially since each tab is a process on its own that can't access the other ones (by conventional means, anyway).
Me, I'd miss JS as tons of sites now make good use for it (like AJAX pages) and there are other practical uses coming for it (interactive SVG, that browser 3D thing Google is making).If there's a need, I'm sure an automatic JS blocker extension will be written eventually for Chrome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990918</id>
	<title>Re:60\% faster loss of privacy</title>
	<author>LordLimecat</author>
	<datestamp>1257010800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>For the tinfoil hat crowd, theres always SRWare Iron, which is Chrome, with updated webkit, with any google-related tracking removed.  You lose site suggestion and auto-update tho, which personally i enjoy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For the tinfoil hat crowd , theres always SRWare Iron , which is Chrome , with updated webkit , with any google-related tracking removed .
You lose site suggestion and auto-update tho , which personally i enjoy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the tinfoil hat crowd, theres always SRWare Iron, which is Chrome, with updated webkit, with any google-related tracking removed.
You lose site suggestion and auto-update tho, which personally i enjoy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29994174</id>
	<title>Re:Smoking</title>
	<author>SimonTheSoundMan</author>
	<datestamp>1257433140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pages take as long as Gecko or other Webkit browsers to load here, however<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. is slow when scrolling and causes high CPU usage.  Hopefully a bug that will be ironed out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pages take as long as Gecko or other Webkit browsers to load here , however / .
is slow when scrolling and causes high CPU usage .
Hopefully a bug that will be ironed out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pages take as long as Gecko or other Webkit browsers to load here, however /.
is slow when scrolling and causes high CPU usage.
Hopefully a bug that will be ironed out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990788</id>
	<title>Re:JIT javascript</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257009600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh, they all have JIT compilers (TraceMonkey in Firefox).</p><p>Almost every scripting language does these days.  If you're looking at embedding scripting languages then look no further than Lua.  It's super small and easy to embed, fast, easy API for extending, and similar semantics to Javascript (except way better).  Also, LuaJIT 2 beta just came out a few days ago and it's kicking all kinds of ass as far as performance in scripting languages go (rewriting the book in fact)..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , they all have JIT compilers ( TraceMonkey in Firefox ) .Almost every scripting language does these days .
If you 're looking at embedding scripting languages then look no further than Lua .
It 's super small and easy to embed , fast , easy API for extending , and similar semantics to Javascript ( except way better ) .
Also , LuaJIT 2 beta just came out a few days ago and it 's kicking all kinds of ass as far as performance in scripting languages go ( rewriting the book in fact ) . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, they all have JIT compilers (TraceMonkey in Firefox).Almost every scripting language does these days.
If you're looking at embedding scripting languages then look no further than Lua.
It's super small and easy to embed, fast, easy API for extending, and similar semantics to Javascript (except way better).
Also, LuaJIT 2 beta just came out a few days ago and it's kicking all kinds of ass as far as performance in scripting languages go (rewriting the book in fact)..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29993074</id>
	<title>Webkit-based browsers</title>
	<author>AVryhof</author>
	<datestamp>1257423900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Being a netbook owner, I'm becoming quite fond of Webkit-based browsers for general browsing purposes.  For KDE and Windows, I like <a href="http://code.google.com/p/arora/" title="google.com">Arora</a> [google.com].  On my eee, I use Epiphany with the Webkit extension, and I'm exploring replacing that with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midori\_(web\_browser)" title="wikipedia.org">Midori</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>Yeah, they are beta quality, but they are also screaming fast and the rendering is second to none.  I have yet to have them crash, or encounter a website they can't render well enough.</p><p>On the other hand, I'm a steadfast fan of firefox for development.  I have yet to see a lightweight browser with the Web Developer toolbar, Colorfox, Measure It, or a nicer Javascript debugger.</p><p>Honestly, I would like to see these released for Seamonkey, and to see a few more features added to the Seamonkey HTML Editor. (extensions similar to Dreamweaver, Site Manager, more customizable toolbar layout, and a full-featured code editor)  Drop all of the other Crap.... Make Seamonkey a development platform with HTML Editor, Web Browser, FTP and support for CVS/GIT/SVN....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Being a netbook owner , I 'm becoming quite fond of Webkit-based browsers for general browsing purposes .
For KDE and Windows , I like Arora [ google.com ] .
On my eee , I use Epiphany with the Webkit extension , and I 'm exploring replacing that with Midori [ wikipedia.org ] .Yeah , they are beta quality , but they are also screaming fast and the rendering is second to none .
I have yet to have them crash , or encounter a website they ca n't render well enough.On the other hand , I 'm a steadfast fan of firefox for development .
I have yet to see a lightweight browser with the Web Developer toolbar , Colorfox , Measure It , or a nicer Javascript debugger.Honestly , I would like to see these released for Seamonkey , and to see a few more features added to the Seamonkey HTML Editor .
( extensions similar to Dreamweaver , Site Manager , more customizable toolbar layout , and a full-featured code editor ) Drop all of the other Crap.... Make Seamonkey a development platform with HTML Editor , Web Browser , FTP and support for CVS/GIT/SVN... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being a netbook owner, I'm becoming quite fond of Webkit-based browsers for general browsing purposes.
For KDE and Windows, I like Arora [google.com].
On my eee, I use Epiphany with the Webkit extension, and I'm exploring replacing that with Midori [wikipedia.org].Yeah, they are beta quality, but they are also screaming fast and the rendering is second to none.
I have yet to have them crash, or encounter a website they can't render well enough.On the other hand, I'm a steadfast fan of firefox for development.
I have yet to see a lightweight browser with the Web Developer toolbar, Colorfox, Measure It, or a nicer Javascript debugger.Honestly, I would like to see these released for Seamonkey, and to see a few more features added to the Seamonkey HTML Editor.
(extensions similar to Dreamweaver, Site Manager, more customizable toolbar layout, and a full-featured code editor)  Drop all of the other Crap.... Make Seamonkey a development platform with HTML Editor, Web Browser, FTP and support for CVS/GIT/SVN....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991000</id>
	<title>Re:JIT javascript</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1257011520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spidermonkey (the ECMAScript implementation in Gecko, hence in Firefox) and Nitro (aka SFX Extreme, the ECMAScript implementation in Safari) both use JITs as well.</p><p>&gt; just like modern Java runtimes</p><p>Not quite; the tradeoffs are somewhat different.</p><p>&gt; JavaScript is going to approach native code speed</p><p>Somewhat.  Depends on your jit, on your code, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spidermonkey ( the ECMAScript implementation in Gecko , hence in Firefox ) and Nitro ( aka SFX Extreme , the ECMAScript implementation in Safari ) both use JITs as well. &gt; just like modern Java runtimesNot quite ; the tradeoffs are somewhat different. &gt; JavaScript is going to approach native code speedSomewhat .
Depends on your jit , on your code , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spidermonkey (the ECMAScript implementation in Gecko, hence in Firefox) and Nitro (aka SFX Extreme, the ECMAScript implementation in Safari) both use JITs as well.&gt; just like modern Java runtimesNot quite; the tradeoffs are somewhat different.&gt; JavaScript is going to approach native code speedSomewhat.
Depends on your jit, on your code, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990448</id>
	<title>Re:60\% faster loss of privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257006840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That would be Firefox which reveals your bookmarks.  By abusing the visited link style, it can conditionally load images depending on whether or not you have visited a specific page.  Carpet-bomb enough of those, and you can tell which of the top 5000 websites a user has been to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be Firefox which reveals your bookmarks .
By abusing the visited link style , it can conditionally load images depending on whether or not you have visited a specific page .
Carpet-bomb enough of those , and you can tell which of the top 5000 websites a user has been to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be Firefox which reveals your bookmarks.
By abusing the visited link style, it can conditionally load images depending on whether or not you have visited a specific page.
Carpet-bomb enough of those, and you can tell which of the top 5000 websites a user has been to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.30001868</id>
	<title>Re:Cheating on my first love - Firefox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257427380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should try blocking ad servers with you're hosts file. That way you can use whatever browser you want without ads.<br>example: someonewhocares.org/hosts/zero/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should try blocking ad servers with you 're hosts file .
That way you can use whatever browser you want without ads.example : someonewhocares.org/hosts/zero/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should try blocking ad servers with you're hosts file.
That way you can use whatever browser you want without ads.example: someonewhocares.org/hosts/zero/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991874</id>
	<title>Re:Cheating on my first love - Firefox</title>
	<author>SanityInAnarchy</author>
	<datestamp>1257452460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it will never be faster, more reliable, or safer than simply not running any JavaScript at all.</p></div><p>Unless "not running any JavaScript at all" requires using a less secure browser.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Blocking all JavaScript by default, with the ability to individually white-list individual items (close, but not quite, Opera), is a bare minimum requirement for safe web surfing.</p></div><p>No, it's an extreme. It's a "bare minimum" like the thumb reader on my laptop is a "bare minimum" -- buys me almost no real security, makes things more cumbersome to use, and the time and effort would be better spent elsewhere.</p><p>One example: Chrome's sandboxing makes the entire browser more secure against <i>any</i> web compromise, whether it originates from script, HTML, CSS, images, anything. It's not there yet, but you can imagine it dialed up to where individual iframes have their own render process, to where Flash in one tab physically can't touch Flash in another tab. It's not a new idea, Postfix has been doing it for years (decades?), but if anything needs this, browsers do.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Blocking advertisements does more to speed up real-world browsing speed (not just benchmarks) than any other single change.</p></div><p>Yes and no.</p><p>Yes, and that's the reason I wrote an adblocker extension for Chrome. It took about an afternoon, including learning the Chrome extension API. I once spent an afternoon just trying to play with writing a Firefox addon...</p><p>But no, sorry, sometimes you actually do benefit directly from the browser being fast. I'm willing to bet that Slashdot with ads enabled is still more pleasant to use with the new AJAX in Chrome, than it is with ads disabled and no JavaScript in any other browser.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If either Opera or Chrome would implement those two feature sets</p></div><p>Worth mentioning that you can implement them for all browsers with privoxy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it will never be faster , more reliable , or safer than simply not running any JavaScript at all.Unless " not running any JavaScript at all " requires using a less secure browser.Blocking all JavaScript by default , with the ability to individually white-list individual items ( close , but not quite , Opera ) , is a bare minimum requirement for safe web surfing.No , it 's an extreme .
It 's a " bare minimum " like the thumb reader on my laptop is a " bare minimum " -- buys me almost no real security , makes things more cumbersome to use , and the time and effort would be better spent elsewhere.One example : Chrome 's sandboxing makes the entire browser more secure against any web compromise , whether it originates from script , HTML , CSS , images , anything .
It 's not there yet , but you can imagine it dialed up to where individual iframes have their own render process , to where Flash in one tab physically ca n't touch Flash in another tab .
It 's not a new idea , Postfix has been doing it for years ( decades ?
) , but if anything needs this , browsers do.Blocking advertisements does more to speed up real-world browsing speed ( not just benchmarks ) than any other single change.Yes and no.Yes , and that 's the reason I wrote an adblocker extension for Chrome .
It took about an afternoon , including learning the Chrome extension API .
I once spent an afternoon just trying to play with writing a Firefox addon...But no , sorry , sometimes you actually do benefit directly from the browser being fast .
I 'm willing to bet that Slashdot with ads enabled is still more pleasant to use with the new AJAX in Chrome , than it is with ads disabled and no JavaScript in any other browser.If either Opera or Chrome would implement those two feature setsWorth mentioning that you can implement them for all browsers with privoxy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it will never be faster, more reliable, or safer than simply not running any JavaScript at all.Unless "not running any JavaScript at all" requires using a less secure browser.Blocking all JavaScript by default, with the ability to individually white-list individual items (close, but not quite, Opera), is a bare minimum requirement for safe web surfing.No, it's an extreme.
It's a "bare minimum" like the thumb reader on my laptop is a "bare minimum" -- buys me almost no real security, makes things more cumbersome to use, and the time and effort would be better spent elsewhere.One example: Chrome's sandboxing makes the entire browser more secure against any web compromise, whether it originates from script, HTML, CSS, images, anything.
It's not there yet, but you can imagine it dialed up to where individual iframes have their own render process, to where Flash in one tab physically can't touch Flash in another tab.
It's not a new idea, Postfix has been doing it for years (decades?
), but if anything needs this, browsers do.Blocking advertisements does more to speed up real-world browsing speed (not just benchmarks) than any other single change.Yes and no.Yes, and that's the reason I wrote an adblocker extension for Chrome.
It took about an afternoon, including learning the Chrome extension API.
I once spent an afternoon just trying to play with writing a Firefox addon...But no, sorry, sometimes you actually do benefit directly from the browser being fast.
I'm willing to bet that Slashdot with ads enabled is still more pleasant to use with the new AJAX in Chrome, than it is with ads disabled and no JavaScript in any other browser.If either Opera or Chrome would implement those two feature setsWorth mentioning that you can implement them for all browsers with privoxy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29997052</id>
	<title>Re:Why Chrome never can be my browser:</title>
	<author>AntiDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1257447480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's like an echo in here....Chrome has ad blockers.  It has extensions. And if you're concerned about data mining and letting google track your searches etc there's Chromium and Iron, which are the 100\% open source based versions (no Google branding and extras).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's like an echo in here....Chrome has ad blockers .
It has extensions .
And if you 're concerned about data mining and letting google track your searches etc there 's Chromium and Iron , which are the 100 \ % open source based versions ( no Google branding and extras ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's like an echo in here....Chrome has ad blockers.
It has extensions.
And if you're concerned about data mining and letting google track your searches etc there's Chromium and Iron, which are the 100\% open source based versions (no Google branding and extras).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29994020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991688</id>
	<title>4.0.237.0 build 31074: 133\% faster</title>
	<author>jijitus</author>
	<datestamp>1257018060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Running Futuremark's <a href="http://service.futuremark.com/peacekeeper/" title="futuremark.com" rel="nofollow">Peacekeeper</a> [futuremark.com] I have this results:
<ul>
<li>Mozilla's 32 bit Linux build gave me 1383 points</li>
<li>Swiftfox for amd64 (it's 32 bit anyway) gave 1528 points</li>
<li>Chromium build 31074 64 bit was up a whopping 133\% to 3234 points</li>
</ul><p>
All under the same computer and the same background tasks/services/etc.
<br>
What is keeping Firefox behind so much? Architecture optimization is not the answer: 64-bit Iceweasel 3.0 did not feel any faster than a 32-bit Firefox 3.0, and Swiftfox shows only 10\% improvement over the Mozilla binaries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Running Futuremark 's Peacekeeper [ futuremark.com ] I have this results : Mozilla 's 32 bit Linux build gave me 1383 points Swiftfox for amd64 ( it 's 32 bit anyway ) gave 1528 points Chromium build 31074 64 bit was up a whopping 133 \ % to 3234 points All under the same computer and the same background tasks/services/etc .
What is keeping Firefox behind so much ?
Architecture optimization is not the answer : 64-bit Iceweasel 3.0 did not feel any faster than a 32-bit Firefox 3.0 , and Swiftfox shows only 10 \ % improvement over the Mozilla binaries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Running Futuremark's Peacekeeper [futuremark.com] I have this results:

Mozilla's 32 bit Linux build gave me 1383 points
Swiftfox for amd64 (it's 32 bit anyway) gave 1528 points
Chromium build 31074 64 bit was up a whopping 133\% to 3234 points

All under the same computer and the same background tasks/services/etc.
What is keeping Firefox behind so much?
Architecture optimization is not the answer: 64-bit Iceweasel 3.0 did not feel any faster than a 32-bit Firefox 3.0, and Swiftfox shows only 10\% improvement over the Mozilla binaries.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29992078</id>
	<title>Re:4.0.237.0 build 31074: 133\% faster</title>
	<author>koiransuklaa</author>
	<datestamp>1257412080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems you are comparing a beta version of Chrome to an obsolete version of Firefox. Sounds really fair<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Try comparing Chrome betas to Firefox Namoroka nightlies or alternatively test the released versions: Chrome 3.0 to Firefox 3.5.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems you are comparing a beta version of Chrome to an obsolete version of Firefox .
Sounds really fair : ) Try comparing Chrome betas to Firefox Namoroka nightlies or alternatively test the released versions : Chrome 3.0 to Firefox 3.5 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems you are comparing a beta version of Chrome to an obsolete version of Firefox.
Sounds really fair :)Try comparing Chrome betas to Firefox Namoroka nightlies or alternatively test the released versions: Chrome 3.0 to Firefox 3.5.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990778</id>
	<title>Speed is nice, but lets get some basic features</title>
	<author>pyrico</author>
	<datestamp>1257009540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I really wish they would put at least one developer on getting some of their basic features requests done.<br> <br>

For example, I wanted to use Chrome as my HTPC browser as it does a good job scaling it's plugins to the system 2x DPI (unlike Firefox where flash applets are tiny squares in big dark frames they are supposed to fill).<br> <br>

But Chrome does not save the full page zoom setting! Every time you open a tab or browser instance you have to Ctr + which becomes unusable. It has not browser-wide options related to full page zoom and their font options are confusing and seem to make no effect.<br> <br>

Worse is the how easy it is to fine <a href="http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Chrome/thread?tid=1721adfb2890b46a&amp;hl=en" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">lots</a> [google.com] and <a href="http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Chrome/thread?tid=54cbcc322e244ef6&amp;hl=en" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">lots</a> [google.com] and <a href="http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Chrome/thread?tid=56b7dd0774420131&amp;hl=en" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">lots</a> [google.com] and <a href="http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Chrome/thread?tid=7e819b020599c0e6&amp;hl=en" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">lots</a> [google.com] of people complaining about this on their own help forums without a single response from the developers.<br> <br>

I know they are avoiding feature creep and keeping things slim, but even by a 80/20 rule, this kind of thing should be picked up (and could even replace their useless font settings dialog).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really wish they would put at least one developer on getting some of their basic features requests done .
For example , I wanted to use Chrome as my HTPC browser as it does a good job scaling it 's plugins to the system 2x DPI ( unlike Firefox where flash applets are tiny squares in big dark frames they are supposed to fill ) .
But Chrome does not save the full page zoom setting !
Every time you open a tab or browser instance you have to Ctr + which becomes unusable .
It has not browser-wide options related to full page zoom and their font options are confusing and seem to make no effect .
Worse is the how easy it is to fine lots [ google.com ] and lots [ google.com ] and lots [ google.com ] and lots [ google.com ] of people complaining about this on their own help forums without a single response from the developers .
I know they are avoiding feature creep and keeping things slim , but even by a 80/20 rule , this kind of thing should be picked up ( and could even replace their useless font settings dialog ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really wish they would put at least one developer on getting some of their basic features requests done.
For example, I wanted to use Chrome as my HTPC browser as it does a good job scaling it's plugins to the system 2x DPI (unlike Firefox where flash applets are tiny squares in big dark frames they are supposed to fill).
But Chrome does not save the full page zoom setting!
Every time you open a tab or browser instance you have to Ctr + which becomes unusable.
It has not browser-wide options related to full page zoom and their font options are confusing and seem to make no effect.
Worse is the how easy it is to fine lots [google.com] and lots [google.com] and lots [google.com] and lots [google.com] of people complaining about this on their own help forums without a single response from the developers.
I know they are avoiding feature creep and keeping things slim, but even by a 80/20 rule, this kind of thing should be picked up (and could even replace their useless font settings dialog).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990460</id>
	<title>Re:Cheating on my first love - Firefox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257006900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I disagree, Firefox is perfect,</htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree , Firefox is perfect,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree, Firefox is perfect,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990334</id>
	<title>Re:Cheating on my first love - Firefox</title>
	<author>linuxgeek64</author>
	<datestamp>1257006120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pages with little/no JavaScript render faster than those that have much...
Why would you think that JavaScript-less sites render faster?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pages with little/no JavaScript render faster than those that have much.. . Why would you think that JavaScript-less sites render faster ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pages with little/no JavaScript render faster than those that have much...
Why would you think that JavaScript-less sites render faster?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991116</id>
	<title>Re:Is it 30\% faster? Does it matter?</title>
	<author>Mad Merlin</author>
	<datestamp>1257012420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If tomorrow Intel released a CPU that's 30\% faster than today's fastest while still using the same amount of power and not costing any extra $, it'd be pretty big news, don't you agree? Well, this is basically the same thing, except it's free and you don't need to replace hardware to get the speedup. Like it or not, most people routinely use Javascript heavy pages on a daily basis (most any webmail interface, Facebook, even Slashdot), what's wrong with speeding that up? Or maybe you don't like Javascript because you're only vaguely familiar with it? (a surprisingly common affliction)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If tomorrow Intel released a CPU that 's 30 \ % faster than today 's fastest while still using the same amount of power and not costing any extra $ , it 'd be pretty big news , do n't you agree ?
Well , this is basically the same thing , except it 's free and you do n't need to replace hardware to get the speedup .
Like it or not , most people routinely use Javascript heavy pages on a daily basis ( most any webmail interface , Facebook , even Slashdot ) , what 's wrong with speeding that up ?
Or maybe you do n't like Javascript because you 're only vaguely familiar with it ?
( a surprisingly common affliction )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If tomorrow Intel released a CPU that's 30\% faster than today's fastest while still using the same amount of power and not costing any extra $, it'd be pretty big news, don't you agree?
Well, this is basically the same thing, except it's free and you don't need to replace hardware to get the speedup.
Like it or not, most people routinely use Javascript heavy pages on a daily basis (most any webmail interface, Facebook, even Slashdot), what's wrong with speeding that up?
Or maybe you don't like Javascript because you're only vaguely familiar with it?
(a surprisingly common affliction)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29993160</id>
	<title>Tree style tabs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257425100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does anyone know anything tree style tabs feature? I would love to see it, as I use it in firefox with this addon: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/5890</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone know anything tree style tabs feature ?
I would love to see it , as I use it in firefox with this addon : https : //addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/5890</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone know anything tree style tabs feature?
I would love to see it, as I use it in firefox with this addon: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/5890</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.30002344</id>
	<title>Re:Cheating on my first love - Firefox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257432180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>adblock and flashblock extensions for chrome:<br>http://www.downloadsquad.com/2009/11/02/15-great-google-chrome-extensions/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>adblock and flashblock extensions for chrome : http : //www.downloadsquad.com/2009/11/02/15-great-google-chrome-extensions/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>adblock and flashblock extensions for chrome:http://www.downloadsquad.com/2009/11/02/15-great-google-chrome-extensions/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990136</id>
	<title>Smoking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257004800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Loads reddit.com and slashdot.com almost instantly. Occasionally the browser will just hang for a second but it makes firefox look like molasses.

I have serious reservations about using Google as my search, browser, voicemail, and email but it is difficult when they keep blowing the competition out of the water.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Loads reddit.com and slashdot.com almost instantly .
Occasionally the browser will just hang for a second but it makes firefox look like molasses .
I have serious reservations about using Google as my search , browser , voicemail , and email but it is difficult when they keep blowing the competition out of the water .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Loads reddit.com and slashdot.com almost instantly.
Occasionally the browser will just hang for a second but it makes firefox look like molasses.
I have serious reservations about using Google as my search, browser, voicemail, and email but it is difficult when they keep blowing the competition out of the water.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29995226</id>
	<title>Re:Cheating on my first love - Firefox</title>
	<author>word\_virus</author>
	<datestamp>1257438600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Heh.<br> <br>"Google Chrome:  Do Less.  <i>Faster</i>."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Heh .
" Google Chrome : Do Less .
Faster. "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heh.
"Google Chrome:  Do Less.
Faster."</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29992528</id>
	<title>Re:Password Sync also please</title>
	<author>Jugalator</author>
	<datestamp>1257417600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And bookmark sync is coming to Firefox at some time around spring 2010 with Firefox 3.7.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Yes, some time until that date, but I wouldn't be surprised if Google Chrome 4 is released in final form around that date too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And bookmark sync is coming to Firefox at some time around spring 2010 with Firefox 3.7. : ) Yes , some time until that date , but I would n't be surprised if Google Chrome 4 is released in final form around that date too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And bookmark sync is coming to Firefox at some time around spring 2010 with Firefox 3.7. :)Yes, some time until that date, but I wouldn't be surprised if Google Chrome 4 is released in final form around that date too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990984</id>
	<title>Version 4.0 beta</title>
	<author>TangoMargarine</author>
	<datestamp>1257011340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So by this time next year, they'll be on, what, 12.0?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So by this time next year , they 'll be on , what , 12.0 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So by this time next year, they'll be on, what, 12.0?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990902</id>
	<title>Re:Smoking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257010680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm right there with you. Basically all of the free tools from Google have no serious competition in terms of quality. Other tools may have more users, but it's not because they're better.</p><p>I'm not saying we give them a free pass, but have there been any serious breaches of privacy by Google? We've seen dirty moves by Microsoft, we've seen slow moves by Firefox. We've seen silly moves from Yahoo. We've seen invasive moves by Facebook.</p><p>I see Google as pretty freaking amazing. I think even the people who take issue with one thing here or there would have to agree that they are definitely the least of all evils.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm right there with you .
Basically all of the free tools from Google have no serious competition in terms of quality .
Other tools may have more users , but it 's not because they 're better.I 'm not saying we give them a free pass , but have there been any serious breaches of privacy by Google ?
We 've seen dirty moves by Microsoft , we 've seen slow moves by Firefox .
We 've seen silly moves from Yahoo .
We 've seen invasive moves by Facebook.I see Google as pretty freaking amazing .
I think even the people who take issue with one thing here or there would have to agree that they are definitely the least of all evils .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm right there with you.
Basically all of the free tools from Google have no serious competition in terms of quality.
Other tools may have more users, but it's not because they're better.I'm not saying we give them a free pass, but have there been any serious breaches of privacy by Google?
We've seen dirty moves by Microsoft, we've seen slow moves by Firefox.
We've seen silly moves from Yahoo.
We've seen invasive moves by Facebook.I see Google as pretty freaking amazing.
I think even the people who take issue with one thing here or there would have to agree that they are definitely the least of all evils.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29994418</id>
	<title>Re:60\% faster loss of privacy</title>
	<author>Johan Welin</author>
	<datestamp>1257434400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Absolutely!
Getting this info and put it together with site-category data would be like candy for advertisers.
It would be useful though, if you could mark your private bookmarks as private and be guaranteed (by license or otherway..) that the browser provider honor your privacy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely !
Getting this info and put it together with site-category data would be like candy for advertisers .
It would be useful though , if you could mark your private bookmarks as private and be guaranteed ( by license or otherway.. ) that the browser provider honor your privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely!
Getting this info and put it together with site-category data would be like candy for advertisers.
It would be useful though, if you could mark your private bookmarks as private and be guaranteed (by license or otherway..) that the browser provider honor your privacy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990998</id>
	<title>Re:Cheating on my first love - Firefox</title>
	<author>onefriedrice</author>
	<datestamp>1257011460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes, less features.</p></div><p>I don't completely buy that argument.  On my setup, even gimp-2.6 cold-starts faster than FF 3.5.4, and gimp seems to be pretty featureful.  FF and Thunderbird are the slowest apps I use, and presumably they share some code.  That tells me there's something really wrong with how Mozilla is writing or deploying their programs.  <br> <br>

Not only is FF slow, but it uses amazing amounts of memory.  I can't understand what it's doing with all that memory, because it's obviously not using it to cache stuff to make it faster.  Or if it is, it's failing.  In the very least, I find it amazing that even after all these years, it's still noticeably leaky.<br> <br>

Actually, I've noticed FF seems to be zippier on Windows, so maybe Mozilla just struggles with with Linux port...  Regardless, after chromium grows up a little bit more, I'll also probably be leaving FF.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , less features.I do n't completely buy that argument .
On my setup , even gimp-2.6 cold-starts faster than FF 3.5.4 , and gimp seems to be pretty featureful .
FF and Thunderbird are the slowest apps I use , and presumably they share some code .
That tells me there 's something really wrong with how Mozilla is writing or deploying their programs .
Not only is FF slow , but it uses amazing amounts of memory .
I ca n't understand what it 's doing with all that memory , because it 's obviously not using it to cache stuff to make it faster .
Or if it is , it 's failing .
In the very least , I find it amazing that even after all these years , it 's still noticeably leaky .
Actually , I 've noticed FF seems to be zippier on Windows , so maybe Mozilla just struggles with with Linux port... Regardless , after chromium grows up a little bit more , I 'll also probably be leaving FF .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, less features.I don't completely buy that argument.
On my setup, even gimp-2.6 cold-starts faster than FF 3.5.4, and gimp seems to be pretty featureful.
FF and Thunderbird are the slowest apps I use, and presumably they share some code.
That tells me there's something really wrong with how Mozilla is writing or deploying their programs.
Not only is FF slow, but it uses amazing amounts of memory.
I can't understand what it's doing with all that memory, because it's obviously not using it to cache stuff to make it faster.
Or if it is, it's failing.
In the very least, I find it amazing that even after all these years, it's still noticeably leaky.
Actually, I've noticed FF seems to be zippier on Windows, so maybe Mozilla just struggles with with Linux port...  Regardless, after chromium grows up a little bit more, I'll also probably be leaving FF.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990366</id>
	<title>Fast, even on Slashdot</title>
	<author>zach\_the\_lizard</author>
	<datestamp>1257006300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The annoyingly slow preview scripts here on Slashdot, that appear to bring Firefox to its knees, take very little time at all to run. Now we can finally enjoy Slashdot with its annoying web 2.0 features. Thanks, Google!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The annoyingly slow preview scripts here on Slashdot , that appear to bring Firefox to its knees , take very little time at all to run .
Now we can finally enjoy Slashdot with its annoying web 2.0 features .
Thanks , Google !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The annoyingly slow preview scripts here on Slashdot, that appear to bring Firefox to its knees, take very little time at all to run.
Now we can finally enjoy Slashdot with its annoying web 2.0 features.
Thanks, Google!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990432</id>
	<title>Re:60\% faster loss of privacy</title>
	<author>h4rr4r</author>
	<datestamp>1257006720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Troll?<br>For pointing out why google would want to do this?<br>You would think I had insulted the Cult of Jobs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Troll ? For pointing out why google would want to do this ? You would think I had insulted the Cult of Jobs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Troll?For pointing out why google would want to do this?You would think I had insulted the Cult of Jobs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.30004054</id>
	<title>Re:Why Chrome never can be my browser:</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1257504720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WTF?? Some asshole with mod-points is on a down-modding spree! All my comments that are now modded into oblivion were higher than +2 Interesting yesterday! Boy there are some <em>losers</em> on this planet...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF ? ?
Some asshole with mod-points is on a down-modding spree !
All my comments that are now modded into oblivion were higher than + 2 Interesting yesterday !
Boy there are some losers on this planet.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF??
Some asshole with mod-points is on a down-modding spree!
All my comments that are now modded into oblivion were higher than +2 Interesting yesterday!
Boy there are some losers on this planet...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29994020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991168</id>
	<title>Re:Cheating on my first love - Firefox</title>
	<author>k8to</author>
	<datestamp>1257012900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is this a troll?</p><p>Moderators, you need help.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this a troll ? Moderators , you need help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this a troll?Moderators, you need help.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991456</id>
	<title>Re:Is it 30\% faster? Does it matter?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257015720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I think it's a case of misreporting.  If you read the article carefully, they use Dromaeo, which as far as I can tell tests Javascript + DOM.  So a 30\% boost in DOM speed is certainly noticeable (of course this is a 30\% in DOM created by Javascript, so it's unclear how much is DOM improvements vs just Javascript).  This also doesn't measure rendering speed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I think it 's a case of misreporting .
If you read the article carefully , they use Dromaeo , which as far as I can tell tests Javascript + DOM .
So a 30 \ % boost in DOM speed is certainly noticeable ( of course this is a 30 \ % in DOM created by Javascript , so it 's unclear how much is DOM improvements vs just Javascript ) .
This also does n't measure rendering speed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I think it's a case of misreporting.
If you read the article carefully, they use Dromaeo, which as far as I can tell tests Javascript + DOM.
So a 30\% boost in DOM speed is certainly noticeable (of course this is a 30\% in DOM created by Javascript, so it's unclear how much is DOM improvements vs just Javascript).
This also doesn't measure rendering speed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991180</id>
	<title>Re:Cheating on my first love - Firefox</title>
	<author>CoughDropAddict</author>
	<datestamp>1257012960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Chrome got me where it matters most - raw speed.</i></p><p>This is why I never understand how people can say "sure, maybe Java/garbage-collection/50mb-binaries/etc. are a little slower, but computers are SO FAST these days and programmer productivity is SO much more important.  Hardware is cheap, programmers are expensive."  etc.</p><p>Speed still matters!  And it always will.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chrome got me where it matters most - raw speed.This is why I never understand how people can say " sure , maybe Java/garbage-collection/50mb-binaries/etc .
are a little slower , but computers are SO FAST these days and programmer productivity is SO much more important .
Hardware is cheap , programmers are expensive .
" etc.Speed still matters !
And it always will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chrome got me where it matters most - raw speed.This is why I never understand how people can say "sure, maybe Java/garbage-collection/50mb-binaries/etc.
are a little slower, but computers are SO FAST these days and programmer productivity is SO much more important.
Hardware is cheap, programmers are expensive.
"  etc.Speed still matters!
And it always will.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29996224</id>
	<title>Re:Cheating on my first love - Firefox</title>
	<author>brkello</author>
	<datestamp>1257443340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Java != Javascript.  Compiled languages, when done right, are always going to be faster than non-compiled languages.  C will always be faster than Java (because you have more control and the compilers are still better).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Java ! = Javascript .
Compiled languages , when done right , are always going to be faster than non-compiled languages .
C will always be faster than Java ( because you have more control and the compilers are still better ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Java != Javascript.
Compiled languages, when done right, are always going to be faster than non-compiled languages.
C will always be faster than Java (because you have more control and the compilers are still better).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29997722</id>
	<title>Comparison Tests</title>
	<author>Lawrence\_Bird</author>
	<datestamp>1257450540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the heck of it I ran the sunspider tests for chrome 4.0 beta and three versions of firefox - 3.7a1pre, 3.6b and 3.5.5  I also tested on opera 10 and ie 8 but omit those as they were very slow.  Tests are on an aging athlon mp dual cpu system.</p><p>Chrome came in at 1315<br>Firefox 3.7a at 1818<br>Firefox 3.6b at 2045<br>Firefox 3.5.5 at 2472</p><p>Observations - the fannkuch test ran 25\% slower on 3.7a then on 3.5.5, something odd there.</p><p>When comparing Chrome to 3.7a  Chrome pulls ahead primarily on the regexp and date functions and to a lesser extent on the strings.<br>3.7a however is significantly faster on the math tests.</p><p>I wonder if we are getting to the point where on a modern cpu the actual perceived differences in speed will be negligible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the heck of it I ran the sunspider tests for chrome 4.0 beta and three versions of firefox - 3.7a1pre , 3.6b and 3.5.5 I also tested on opera 10 and ie 8 but omit those as they were very slow .
Tests are on an aging athlon mp dual cpu system.Chrome came in at 1315Firefox 3.7a at 1818Firefox 3.6b at 2045Firefox 3.5.5 at 2472Observations - the fannkuch test ran 25 \ % slower on 3.7a then on 3.5.5 , something odd there.When comparing Chrome to 3.7a Chrome pulls ahead primarily on the regexp and date functions and to a lesser extent on the strings.3.7a however is significantly faster on the math tests.I wonder if we are getting to the point where on a modern cpu the actual perceived differences in speed will be negligible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the heck of it I ran the sunspider tests for chrome 4.0 beta and three versions of firefox - 3.7a1pre, 3.6b and 3.5.5  I also tested on opera 10 and ie 8 but omit those as they were very slow.
Tests are on an aging athlon mp dual cpu system.Chrome came in at 1315Firefox 3.7a at 1818Firefox 3.6b at 2045Firefox 3.5.5 at 2472Observations - the fannkuch test ran 25\% slower on 3.7a then on 3.5.5, something odd there.When comparing Chrome to 3.7a  Chrome pulls ahead primarily on the regexp and date functions and to a lesser extent on the strings.3.7a however is significantly faster on the math tests.I wonder if we are getting to the point where on a modern cpu the actual perceived differences in speed will be negligible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991970</id>
	<title>Re:Cheating on my first love - Firefox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257453660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Webkit source may be joy to browse, and it's absolutely the easier solution for some small embedding project. Whether it's "better" for larger projects (like making your own browser) is not that clear.</p><p>See Chris Lord's comments (he writes the Moblin browser, a Clutter+Gecko based browser with some modern features like process-per-tab) and the ensuing discussion: <a href="http://chrislord.net/blog/Software/mozilla-is-actually-pretty-good-guys.enlighten" title="chrislord.net" rel="nofollow">http://chrislord.net/blog/Software/mozilla-is-actually-pretty-good-guys.enlighten</a> [chrislord.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Webkit source may be joy to browse , and it 's absolutely the easier solution for some small embedding project .
Whether it 's " better " for larger projects ( like making your own browser ) is not that clear.See Chris Lord 's comments ( he writes the Moblin browser , a Clutter + Gecko based browser with some modern features like process-per-tab ) and the ensuing discussion : http : //chrislord.net/blog/Software/mozilla-is-actually-pretty-good-guys.enlighten [ chrislord.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Webkit source may be joy to browse, and it's absolutely the easier solution for some small embedding project.
Whether it's "better" for larger projects (like making your own browser) is not that clear.See Chris Lord's comments (he writes the Moblin browser, a Clutter+Gecko based browser with some modern features like process-per-tab) and the ensuing discussion: http://chrislord.net/blog/Software/mozilla-is-actually-pretty-good-guys.enlighten [chrislord.net]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990332</id>
	<title>Plugin support</title>
	<author>h4rr4r</author>
	<datestamp>1257006120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Until it has that or built in addblock and vimperator, no chrome here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Until it has that or built in addblock and vimperator , no chrome here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until it has that or built in addblock and vimperator, no chrome here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29993596</id>
	<title>Re:Smoking</title>
	<author>ckaminski</author>
	<datestamp>1257429780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been spoiled by AdBlock Plus.  I cringe every time I browse the web in IE and wonder why pages I normally visit look like crap, then I notice the ads.  Chrome w/o Adblock is a no-go, no matter how fast it is.<br><br>Sorry.<br><br>Those sites I *LIKE* to use and want to support, I'll leave some ads on, but the rest of the web?  Fuck it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been spoiled by AdBlock Plus .
I cringe every time I browse the web in IE and wonder why pages I normally visit look like crap , then I notice the ads .
Chrome w/o Adblock is a no-go , no matter how fast it is.Sorry.Those sites I * LIKE * to use and want to support , I 'll leave some ads on , but the rest of the web ?
Fuck it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been spoiled by AdBlock Plus.
I cringe every time I browse the web in IE and wonder why pages I normally visit look like crap, then I notice the ads.
Chrome w/o Adblock is a no-go, no matter how fast it is.Sorry.Those sites I *LIKE* to use and want to support, I'll leave some ads on, but the rest of the web?
Fuck it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29993500</id>
	<title>Re:60\% faster loss of privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257428820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>60\% faster loss of privacy</p></div><p>We're supposed to do this only with Microsoft, you buffoon!</p><p>Hey, who has heard of Windows 7's DRM? It will keep you locked from your own files and send them to microsoft for approval! Yes, it's true!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>60 \ % faster loss of privacyWe 're supposed to do this only with Microsoft , you buffoon ! Hey , who has heard of Windows 7 's DRM ?
It will keep you locked from your own files and send them to microsoft for approval !
Yes , it 's true !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>60\% faster loss of privacyWe're supposed to do this only with Microsoft, you buffoon!Hey, who has heard of Windows 7's DRM?
It will keep you locked from your own files and send them to microsoft for approval!
Yes, it's true!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991040</id>
	<title>Re:Is it 30\% faster? Does it matter?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257011940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you used GMail? It's amazing what it can do in a web-browser.</p><p>When you then consider Google Wave, which has GMail (and a bunch of other Google services) as a subset of it's functionality plus its new collaboration items, it's fairly easy to see the need for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you used GMail ?
It 's amazing what it can do in a web-browser.When you then consider Google Wave , which has GMail ( and a bunch of other Google services ) as a subset of it 's functionality plus its new collaboration items , it 's fairly easy to see the need for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you used GMail?
It's amazing what it can do in a web-browser.When you then consider Google Wave, which has GMail (and a bunch of other Google services) as a subset of it's functionality plus its new collaboration items, it's fairly easy to see the need for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990532</id>
	<title>Re:Cheating on my first love - Firefox</title>
	<author>Judinous</author>
	<datestamp>1257007440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>No matter how good Chrome's JavaScript performance gets, it will never be faster, more reliable, or safer than simply not running any JavaScript at all.  Blocking all JavaScript by default, with the ability to individually white-list individual items (close, but not quite, Opera), is a bare minimum requirement for safe web surfing.  Blocking advertisements does more to speed up real-world browsing speed (not just benchmarks) than any other single change.  Until another browser implements these two features, Firefox is the only rational option for home browsing.  <br> <br>I'm not a Firefox fanboy, I'm just aware of my needs.  In the business arena, I wouldn't recommend anything but Internet Explorer (behind a proxy, of course), because no other browser comes with the enterprise management tools necessary for large deployments.  That's another area that I wish more browsers would improve upon.<br> <br>If either Opera or Chrome would implement those two feature sets along with their superior rendering performance, they would blow the web browser market wide open.  I don't know why it hasn't happened yet, since most technical people are well aware of these issues.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No matter how good Chrome 's JavaScript performance gets , it will never be faster , more reliable , or safer than simply not running any JavaScript at all .
Blocking all JavaScript by default , with the ability to individually white-list individual items ( close , but not quite , Opera ) , is a bare minimum requirement for safe web surfing .
Blocking advertisements does more to speed up real-world browsing speed ( not just benchmarks ) than any other single change .
Until another browser implements these two features , Firefox is the only rational option for home browsing .
I 'm not a Firefox fanboy , I 'm just aware of my needs .
In the business arena , I would n't recommend anything but Internet Explorer ( behind a proxy , of course ) , because no other browser comes with the enterprise management tools necessary for large deployments .
That 's another area that I wish more browsers would improve upon .
If either Opera or Chrome would implement those two feature sets along with their superior rendering performance , they would blow the web browser market wide open .
I do n't know why it has n't happened yet , since most technical people are well aware of these issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No matter how good Chrome's JavaScript performance gets, it will never be faster, more reliable, or safer than simply not running any JavaScript at all.
Blocking all JavaScript by default, with the ability to individually white-list individual items (close, but not quite, Opera), is a bare minimum requirement for safe web surfing.
Blocking advertisements does more to speed up real-world browsing speed (not just benchmarks) than any other single change.
Until another browser implements these two features, Firefox is the only rational option for home browsing.
I'm not a Firefox fanboy, I'm just aware of my needs.
In the business arena, I wouldn't recommend anything but Internet Explorer (behind a proxy, of course), because no other browser comes with the enterprise management tools necessary for large deployments.
That's another area that I wish more browsers would improve upon.
If either Opera or Chrome would implement those two feature sets along with their superior rendering performance, they would blow the web browser market wide open.
I don't know why it hasn't happened yet, since most technical people are well aware of these issues.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29992822</id>
	<title>Adblock now available</title>
	<author>hoover</author>
	<datestamp>1257420840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hearing that adblock extension is now available for the chrome beta, I decided to give this new release another go. However chrome claimed that "extensions are disabled" whenever I tried to install adblock from chromeextensions.org, no matter what combination of startup parameters I added to the shortcut (supposedly, --enable-extensions should do the trick).</p><p>Can anybody shed some light on this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hearing that adblock extension is now available for the chrome beta , I decided to give this new release another go .
However chrome claimed that " extensions are disabled " whenever I tried to install adblock from chromeextensions.org , no matter what combination of startup parameters I added to the shortcut ( supposedly , --enable-extensions should do the trick ) .Can anybody shed some light on this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hearing that adblock extension is now available for the chrome beta, I decided to give this new release another go.
However chrome claimed that "extensions are disabled" whenever I tried to install adblock from chromeextensions.org, no matter what combination of startup parameters I added to the shortcut (supposedly, --enable-extensions should do the trick).Can anybody shed some light on this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29994484</id>
	<title>Chrome as an enterprise browser</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257434760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So have they gotten Chrome to work properly with SSL proxies yet? The last 4 versions Ive tried don't and are therefore garbage as far as I am concerned.</p><p>If I can't use it at home AND at work, I won't be using it at home. If it isn't secure enough to use in my company, why would I trust it at home?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So have they gotten Chrome to work properly with SSL proxies yet ?
The last 4 versions Ive tried do n't and are therefore garbage as far as I am concerned.If I ca n't use it at home AND at work , I wo n't be using it at home .
If it is n't secure enough to use in my company , why would I trust it at home ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So have they gotten Chrome to work properly with SSL proxies yet?
The last 4 versions Ive tried don't and are therefore garbage as far as I am concerned.If I can't use it at home AND at work, I won't be using it at home.
If it isn't secure enough to use in my company, why would I trust it at home?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990526</id>
	<title>Re:Cheating on my first love - Firefox</title>
	<author>tukia</author>
	<datestamp>1257007380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sure you could have a look into the code and figure out how it does it since it's open-sourced?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure you could have a look into the code and figure out how it does it since it 's open-sourced ?
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure you could have a look into the code and figure out how it does it since it's open-sourced?
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990566</id>
	<title>Re:Password Sync also please</title>
	<author>someSnarkyBastard</author>
	<datestamp>1257007680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One small problem with that feature request, how would Google securely store said passwords? (Whether or not you would WANT Google to have access to your passwords is a different discussion entirely) </p><p>Presumably Google will password-protect your password storage (using some form of cryptographic identification (eg private/public key pairs) would be nice but it would never happen (stupid users either lose the private key or accidentally leak their private key into the wild)) but that just means a potential attacker needs to know how to use a password cracking tool like THC-Hydra or JohnTheRipper, or leverage a botnet to do the work for him. </p><p>I could see this becoming a major target for botnet masters:</p><p>1 crack some sap's password-sync using botnet to distribute lockouts over several hundred IP addresses</p><p>2 grab any banking or finance-related password pairs</p><p>3 drain 'em dry</p><p>4 ???</p><p>5 profit.</p><p>6 GOTO 1</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One small problem with that feature request , how would Google securely store said passwords ?
( Whether or not you would WANT Google to have access to your passwords is a different discussion entirely ) Presumably Google will password-protect your password storage ( using some form of cryptographic identification ( eg private/public key pairs ) would be nice but it would never happen ( stupid users either lose the private key or accidentally leak their private key into the wild ) ) but that just means a potential attacker needs to know how to use a password cracking tool like THC-Hydra or JohnTheRipper , or leverage a botnet to do the work for him .
I could see this becoming a major target for botnet masters : 1 crack some sap 's password-sync using botnet to distribute lockouts over several hundred IP addresses2 grab any banking or finance-related password pairs3 drain 'em dry4 ? ?
? 5 profit.6 GOTO 1</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One small problem with that feature request, how would Google securely store said passwords?
(Whether or not you would WANT Google to have access to your passwords is a different discussion entirely) Presumably Google will password-protect your password storage (using some form of cryptographic identification (eg private/public key pairs) would be nice but it would never happen (stupid users either lose the private key or accidentally leak their private key into the wild)) but that just means a potential attacker needs to know how to use a password cracking tool like THC-Hydra or JohnTheRipper, or leverage a botnet to do the work for him.
I could see this becoming a major target for botnet masters:1 crack some sap's password-sync using botnet to distribute lockouts over several hundred IP addresses2 grab any banking or finance-related password pairs3 drain 'em dry4 ??
?5 profit.6 GOTO 1</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29993192</id>
	<title>Re:Is it 30\% faster? Does it matter?</title>
	<author>rdnetto</author>
	<datestamp>1257425460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For me, the most noticeable increase was my greasemonkey scripts. They're what slow down Firefox, so having Chrome blitz through them is pretty significant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For me , the most noticeable increase was my greasemonkey scripts .
They 're what slow down Firefox , so having Chrome blitz through them is pretty significant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For me, the most noticeable increase was my greasemonkey scripts.
They're what slow down Firefox, so having Chrome blitz through them is pretty significant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29992374</id>
	<title>Re:60\% faster loss of privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257415860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"SRWare Iron: The browser of the future - based on the free Sourcecode "Chromium" - without any problems at privacy and security</p><p>
&nbsp; Google's Web browser Chrome thrilled with an extremely fast site rendering, a sleek design and innovative features.  But it also gets critic from data protection specialists , for reasons such as creating a unique user ID or the submission of entries to Google to generate suggestions. SRWare Iron is a real alternative. The browser is based on the Chromium-source and offers the same features as Chrome - but without the critical points that the privacy concern.</p><p>
&nbsp; We could therefore create a browser with which you can now use the innovative features without worrying about your privacy.</p><p>
&nbsp; We want our users to participate in our work and make the browser free to download under the name "SRWare Iron" into the net."</p><p><a href="http://www.srware.net/en/software\_srware\_iron.php" title="srware.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.srware.net/en/software\_srware\_iron.php</a> [srware.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" SRWare Iron : The browser of the future - based on the free Sourcecode " Chromium " - without any problems at privacy and security   Google 's Web browser Chrome thrilled with an extremely fast site rendering , a sleek design and innovative features .
But it also gets critic from data protection specialists , for reasons such as creating a unique user ID or the submission of entries to Google to generate suggestions .
SRWare Iron is a real alternative .
The browser is based on the Chromium-source and offers the same features as Chrome - but without the critical points that the privacy concern .
  We could therefore create a browser with which you can now use the innovative features without worrying about your privacy .
  We want our users to participate in our work and make the browser free to download under the name " SRWare Iron " into the net .
" http : //www.srware.net/en/software \ _srware \ _iron.php [ srware.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"SRWare Iron: The browser of the future - based on the free Sourcecode "Chromium" - without any problems at privacy and security
  Google's Web browser Chrome thrilled with an extremely fast site rendering, a sleek design and innovative features.
But it also gets critic from data protection specialists , for reasons such as creating a unique user ID or the submission of entries to Google to generate suggestions.
SRWare Iron is a real alternative.
The browser is based on the Chromium-source and offers the same features as Chrome - but without the critical points that the privacy concern.
  We could therefore create a browser with which you can now use the innovative features without worrying about your privacy.
  We want our users to participate in our work and make the browser free to download under the name "SRWare Iron" into the net.
"http://www.srware.net/en/software\_srware\_iron.php [srware.net]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29997026</id>
	<title>Re:JIT javascript</title>
	<author>cecom</author>
	<datestamp>1257447360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, yes, yes, JavaScript will imminently reach native code speed<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... when pigs fly. Remember this: JavaScript will never become 2x faster than what it is now. We are at the end of the curve of easy speed improvements, and it is nowhere near to native code speed.</p><p>As a language JavaScript is impossible to optimize well. We will be lucky if it ever gets close to Java's performance, considering that Java is already about an order of magnitude slower than native in extreme cases.</p><p>BTW, I am not saying that JavaScript (or Java) is too slow, simply that in absolute terms it will never be close to native.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , yes , yes , JavaScript will imminently reach native code speed ... when pigs fly .
Remember this : JavaScript will never become 2x faster than what it is now .
We are at the end of the curve of easy speed improvements , and it is nowhere near to native code speed.As a language JavaScript is impossible to optimize well .
We will be lucky if it ever gets close to Java 's performance , considering that Java is already about an order of magnitude slower than native in extreme cases.BTW , I am not saying that JavaScript ( or Java ) is too slow , simply that in absolute terms it will never be close to native .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, yes, yes, JavaScript will imminently reach native code speed ... when pigs fly.
Remember this: JavaScript will never become 2x faster than what it is now.
We are at the end of the curve of easy speed improvements, and it is nowhere near to native code speed.As a language JavaScript is impossible to optimize well.
We will be lucky if it ever gets close to Java's performance, considering that Java is already about an order of magnitude slower than native in extreme cases.BTW, I am not saying that JavaScript (or Java) is too slow, simply that in absolute terms it will never be close to native.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991310</id>
	<title>Re:60\% faster loss of privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257014280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>That is true for ALL browsers that have the visited link style and browsing history activated.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is true for ALL browsers that have the visited link style and browsing history activated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is true for ALL browsers that have the visited link style and browsing history activated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990162</id>
	<title>Password Sync also please</title>
	<author>James Carnley</author>
	<datestamp>1257004920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The biggest feature keeping me on Firefox right now is bookmark and password syncing. Xmarks does the job beautifully.</p><p>I love the fact that native bookmark syncing will be coming to Chrome, but nobody has mentioned password syncing. This is arguable just as important as bookmark sync and should be possible to release alongside bookmarks in this next release.</p><p>I wish they would mention it at least just to know that they are working on it. At the very least I can fallback on the Xmarks version for Chrome that will be available for Chrome 4, but I would much prefer a native solution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest feature keeping me on Firefox right now is bookmark and password syncing .
Xmarks does the job beautifully.I love the fact that native bookmark syncing will be coming to Chrome , but nobody has mentioned password syncing .
This is arguable just as important as bookmark sync and should be possible to release alongside bookmarks in this next release.I wish they would mention it at least just to know that they are working on it .
At the very least I can fallback on the Xmarks version for Chrome that will be available for Chrome 4 , but I would much prefer a native solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The biggest feature keeping me on Firefox right now is bookmark and password syncing.
Xmarks does the job beautifully.I love the fact that native bookmark syncing will be coming to Chrome, but nobody has mentioned password syncing.
This is arguable just as important as bookmark sync and should be possible to release alongside bookmarks in this next release.I wish they would mention it at least just to know that they are working on it.
At the very least I can fallback on the Xmarks version for Chrome that will be available for Chrome 4, but I would much prefer a native solution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29994386</id>
	<title>Version 4 already?</title>
	<author>supersloshy</author>
	<datestamp>1257434280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Am I the only one that thinks Google's going a little too fast with its version numbering scheme? It isn't based on months or years but it keeps going up at a fast pace. Of course, this does make some non-educated folks want to use the software for stupid reasons.</p><p>"You use Firefox? Eww, Chrome's already on version 4 and Firefox is stuck on 3.5.whatever. Noob."<br>or<br>"Chrome has a higher version number than Firefox, so it must be more secure/mature; I'll start using it!"</p><p>I have a friend that won't use anything, I repeat<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/anything/ that doesn't have a version number over 1.0 (even if it's something like FFMPEG). Why are so many people trained to love high version numbers, when in reality they can mean anything?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one that thinks Google 's going a little too fast with its version numbering scheme ?
It is n't based on months or years but it keeps going up at a fast pace .
Of course , this does make some non-educated folks want to use the software for stupid reasons .
" You use Firefox ?
Eww , Chrome 's already on version 4 and Firefox is stuck on 3.5.whatever .
Noob. " or " Chrome has a higher version number than Firefox , so it must be more secure/mature ; I 'll start using it !
" I have a friend that wo n't use anything , I repeat /anything/ that does n't have a version number over 1.0 ( even if it 's something like FFMPEG ) .
Why are so many people trained to love high version numbers , when in reality they can mean anything ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one that thinks Google's going a little too fast with its version numbering scheme?
It isn't based on months or years but it keeps going up at a fast pace.
Of course, this does make some non-educated folks want to use the software for stupid reasons.
"You use Firefox?
Eww, Chrome's already on version 4 and Firefox is stuck on 3.5.whatever.
Noob."or"Chrome has a higher version number than Firefox, so it must be more secure/mature; I'll start using it!
"I have a friend that won't use anything, I repeat /anything/ that doesn't have a version number over 1.0 (even if it's something like FFMPEG).
Why are so many people trained to love high version numbers, when in reality they can mean anything?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990606</id>
	<title>Re:60\% faster loss of privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257008100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have sources for Google servers? Oh you!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have sources for Google servers ?
Oh you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have sources for Google servers?
Oh you!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29992910</id>
	<title>Re:Smoking</title>
	<author>cpscotti</author>
	<datestamp>1257421980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's the big honking problem;<br>
They're taking over the world (Internet &amp; TI) and we are all happy with it!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the big honking problem ; They 're taking over the world ( Internet &amp; TI ) and we are all happy with it !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the big honking problem;
They're taking over the world (Internet &amp; TI) and we are all happy with it!
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990966</id>
	<title>Re:Cheating on my first love - Firefox</title>
	<author>jim\_v2000</author>
	<datestamp>1257011220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I actually get more value out of the addons in Firefox than the speed boost in Chrome.  This is mainly because I usually open a bunch of links in new tabs first, and then go through and read them.  In this situation, speed isn't that important.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually get more value out of the addons in Firefox than the speed boost in Chrome .
This is mainly because I usually open a bunch of links in new tabs first , and then go through and read them .
In this situation , speed is n't that important .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually get more value out of the addons in Firefox than the speed boost in Chrome.
This is mainly because I usually open a bunch of links in new tabs first, and then go through and read them.
In this situation, speed isn't that important.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29992074</id>
	<title>Re:60\% faster loss of privacy</title>
	<author>javabsp</author>
	<datestamp>1257412020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is not limited to firefox, almost every graphical browser is "vulnerable" to this</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is not limited to firefox , almost every graphical browser is " vulnerable " to this</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is not limited to firefox, almost every graphical browser is "vulnerable" to this</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29992928</id>
	<title>Re:Password Sync also please</title>
	<author>Zygfryd</author>
	<datestamp>1257422280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, it's conceivable to allow secure storage of data remotely, in a way that prevents even the storage provider from accessing it.</p><p>You can't trust storage providers today to implement that kind of functionality, unless you analyze the source code of the scripts on the service's webpage every time it loads.</p><p>However the browsers could add functionality to enforce that. They could offer "protected" input forms, input from which is tagged. Every protected input form would be visually indicated and made it apparent what encryption key it's supposed to use. The browser then ensures that any data in DOM nodes and JS objects tagged as protected cannot be sent to the server.</p><p>To remove the protection tag from such data the scripts on the page need to pipe it through a builtin encryption function with the indicated key. The protection tag needs to be viral so that any data derived from protected data is also protected and any JS objects created after a branch based on protected data are also protected.</p><p>On the decryption side, a builtin decrypt function would produce data tagged as protected.</p><p>In short, make browsers ensure that input from indicated form elements is<br>* always encrypted before being sent to the server<br>* encrypted with the desired key</p><p>Naturally that doesn't fix the stupid user problem, but it'd make smart users happy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , it 's conceivable to allow secure storage of data remotely , in a way that prevents even the storage provider from accessing it.You ca n't trust storage providers today to implement that kind of functionality , unless you analyze the source code of the scripts on the service 's webpage every time it loads.However the browsers could add functionality to enforce that .
They could offer " protected " input forms , input from which is tagged .
Every protected input form would be visually indicated and made it apparent what encryption key it 's supposed to use .
The browser then ensures that any data in DOM nodes and JS objects tagged as protected can not be sent to the server.To remove the protection tag from such data the scripts on the page need to pipe it through a builtin encryption function with the indicated key .
The protection tag needs to be viral so that any data derived from protected data is also protected and any JS objects created after a branch based on protected data are also protected.On the decryption side , a builtin decrypt function would produce data tagged as protected.In short , make browsers ensure that input from indicated form elements is * always encrypted before being sent to the server * encrypted with the desired keyNaturally that does n't fix the stupid user problem , but it 'd make smart users happy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, it's conceivable to allow secure storage of data remotely, in a way that prevents even the storage provider from accessing it.You can't trust storage providers today to implement that kind of functionality, unless you analyze the source code of the scripts on the service's webpage every time it loads.However the browsers could add functionality to enforce that.
They could offer "protected" input forms, input from which is tagged.
Every protected input form would be visually indicated and made it apparent what encryption key it's supposed to use.
The browser then ensures that any data in DOM nodes and JS objects tagged as protected cannot be sent to the server.To remove the protection tag from such data the scripts on the page need to pipe it through a builtin encryption function with the indicated key.
The protection tag needs to be viral so that any data derived from protected data is also protected and any JS objects created after a branch based on protected data are also protected.On the decryption side, a builtin decrypt function would produce data tagged as protected.In short, make browsers ensure that input from indicated form elements is* always encrypted before being sent to the server* encrypted with the desired keyNaturally that doesn't fix the stupid user problem, but it'd make smart users happy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29992892</id>
	<title>Re:Cheating on my first love - Firefox</title>
	<author>klui</author>
	<datestamp>1257421800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is Flashblock but Adblock+ (not to be confused with Firefox's Adblock Plus) is actually hiding the ads after downloading them instead of blocking their downloads due to Chrome's lack of content policy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is Flashblock but Adblock + ( not to be confused with Firefox 's Adblock Plus ) is actually hiding the ads after downloading them instead of blocking their downloads due to Chrome 's lack of content policy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is Flashblock but Adblock+ (not to be confused with Firefox's Adblock Plus) is actually hiding the ads after downloading them instead of blocking their downloads due to Chrome's lack of content policy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991146</id>
	<title>Re:60\% faster loss of privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257012660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's why you use the Chromium's privacy-enabled open source fork <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRWare\_Iron" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Iron</a> [wikipedia.org], That way your privacy lies not in the mercy of the browser but in solely your browsing habits (obviously even the most private browser can't prevent you from throwing your privacy out the window by actively or passively using data-mining services).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why you use the Chromium 's privacy-enabled open source fork Iron [ wikipedia.org ] , That way your privacy lies not in the mercy of the browser but in solely your browsing habits ( obviously even the most private browser ca n't prevent you from throwing your privacy out the window by actively or passively using data-mining services ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why you use the Chromium's privacy-enabled open source fork Iron [wikipedia.org], That way your privacy lies not in the mercy of the browser but in solely your browsing habits (obviously even the most private browser can't prevent you from throwing your privacy out the window by actively or passively using data-mining services).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990330</id>
	<title>Re:Cheating on my first love - Firefox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257006120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, less features.</p><p>Firefox is bloated now.  Too many features, those features cost RAM and CPU time.  Start adding all the 'must have' extensions that geeks use and Firefox REALLY starts to suck ass performance wise.</p><p>Couple in that Mozilla has seriously lost its focus and is too busy inventing more crap rather than making Firefox run properly.  Mozilla building something like Breakpad/Socorro makes sense, adding crap like new font formats when they already support ones that are more than capable and MORE open is.</p><p>Chrome doesn't have a bunch of crap to tweak, doesn't support everything and the kitchen sink.  You get far less features from Chrome and more speed.</p><p>You decide which one is more important for you.  Me, I take Chrome for web browsing, Firefox for a mutli-OS development platform where speed isn't as noticeable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , less features.Firefox is bloated now .
Too many features , those features cost RAM and CPU time .
Start adding all the 'must have ' extensions that geeks use and Firefox REALLY starts to suck ass performance wise.Couple in that Mozilla has seriously lost its focus and is too busy inventing more crap rather than making Firefox run properly .
Mozilla building something like Breakpad/Socorro makes sense , adding crap like new font formats when they already support ones that are more than capable and MORE open is.Chrome does n't have a bunch of crap to tweak , does n't support everything and the kitchen sink .
You get far less features from Chrome and more speed.You decide which one is more important for you .
Me , I take Chrome for web browsing , Firefox for a mutli-OS development platform where speed is n't as noticeable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, less features.Firefox is bloated now.
Too many features, those features cost RAM and CPU time.
Start adding all the 'must have' extensions that geeks use and Firefox REALLY starts to suck ass performance wise.Couple in that Mozilla has seriously lost its focus and is too busy inventing more crap rather than making Firefox run properly.
Mozilla building something like Breakpad/Socorro makes sense, adding crap like new font formats when they already support ones that are more than capable and MORE open is.Chrome doesn't have a bunch of crap to tweak, doesn't support everything and the kitchen sink.
You get far less features from Chrome and more speed.You decide which one is more important for you.
Me, I take Chrome for web browsing, Firefox for a mutli-OS development platform where speed isn't as noticeable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29993482</id>
	<title>chrome 4</title>
	<author>packrat2</author>
	<datestamp>1257428640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> where's the linux version?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>where 's the linux version ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> where's the linux version?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29992904</id>
	<title>Re:Cheating on my first love - Firefox</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1257421860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As for the Linux port, Firefox seems to be slightly faster on Wine than the native Linux version.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As for the Linux port , Firefox seems to be slightly faster on Wine than the native Linux version .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As for the Linux port, Firefox seems to be slightly faster on Wine than the native Linux version.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990696</id>
	<title>Re:Plugin support</title>
	<author>Temporal</author>
	<datestamp>1257008820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Until it has that or built in addblock and vimperator, no chrome here.</p></div></blockquote><p>So run the <a href="http://dev.chromium.org/getting-involved/dev-channel" title="chromium.org">dev channel</a> [chromium.org].  It has <a href="http://code.google.com/chrome/extensions/getstarted.html" title="google.com">extensions</a> [google.com] today.  Yes, including <a href="http://adsweep.org/" title="adsweep.org">ad blockers</a> [adsweep.org].  Dev channel is actually perfectly usable if you don't mind the occasional <a href="http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=18385" title="google.com">disembodied head taking the place of a button</a> [google.com].  Dev channel Chrome has been my primary browser for over a year now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Until it has that or built in addblock and vimperator , no chrome here.So run the dev channel [ chromium.org ] .
It has extensions [ google.com ] today .
Yes , including ad blockers [ adsweep.org ] .
Dev channel is actually perfectly usable if you do n't mind the occasional disembodied head taking the place of a button [ google.com ] .
Dev channel Chrome has been my primary browser for over a year now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until it has that or built in addblock and vimperator, no chrome here.So run the dev channel [chromium.org].
It has extensions [google.com] today.
Yes, including ad blockers [adsweep.org].
Dev channel is actually perfectly usable if you don't mind the occasional disembodied head taking the place of a button [google.com].
Dev channel Chrome has been my primary browser for over a year now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.30014170</id>
	<title>Re:JIT javascript</title>
	<author>badkarmadayaccount</author>
	<datestamp>1257607740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hacks.mozilla.org/2009/07/tracemonkey-overview/" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">http://hacks.mozilla.org/2009/07/tracemonkey-overview/</a> [mozilla.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //hacks.mozilla.org/2009/07/tracemonkey-overview/ [ mozilla.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://hacks.mozilla.org/2009/07/tracemonkey-overview/ [mozilla.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29992882</id>
	<title>Re:Smoking</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1257421680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, Google has consistently required court orders before they hand out info. They've even turned down the US government's warrantless demands numerous times, while Microsoft and Yahoo just handed everything over.</p><p>I haven't heard of them sharing private info with other companies - they keep whatever they mine closely guarded. I think they realize their reputation is worth more than whatever they could gain by collaborating.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , Google has consistently required court orders before they hand out info .
They 've even turned down the US government 's warrantless demands numerous times , while Microsoft and Yahoo just handed everything over.I have n't heard of them sharing private info with other companies - they keep whatever they mine closely guarded .
I think they realize their reputation is worth more than whatever they could gain by collaborating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, Google has consistently required court orders before they hand out info.
They've even turned down the US government's warrantless demands numerous times, while Microsoft and Yahoo just handed everything over.I haven't heard of them sharing private info with other companies - they keep whatever they mine closely guarded.
I think they realize their reputation is worth more than whatever they could gain by collaborating.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991112</id>
	<title>Re:100\% less advertisements would be nice...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257012360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is this troll? Whoever modded this troll is the troll! C'mon google fanboys play fair.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this troll ?
Whoever modded this troll is the troll !
C'mon google fanboys play fair .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this troll?
Whoever modded this troll is the troll!
C'mon google fanboys play fair.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991262</id>
	<title>Re:Is it 30\% faster? Does it matter?</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1257013800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>30\% this time is less than 30\% the last time they showed a speed  increase.</p><p>Start off with 100\%, 30\% faster gives you 70\% of the original time.  Take off another 30\% and now you're doing it at 49\% of the original time.  Now remember, we're on the 5th iteration of XX\% faster, since the original chrome was XX\% faster than (whatever they were compare it to).</p><p>Its not likely most people will notice a 30\% increase on most pages, especially Googles own pages.</p><p>When you're talking about taking 30\% off of something that already loaded in 1 or 2 seconds, no one notices, you get more delay from your overloaded cable modem than from the browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>30 \ % this time is less than 30 \ % the last time they showed a speed increase.Start off with 100 \ % , 30 \ % faster gives you 70 \ % of the original time .
Take off another 30 \ % and now you 're doing it at 49 \ % of the original time .
Now remember , we 're on the 5th iteration of XX \ % faster , since the original chrome was XX \ % faster than ( whatever they were compare it to ) .Its not likely most people will notice a 30 \ % increase on most pages , especially Googles own pages.When you 're talking about taking 30 \ % off of something that already loaded in 1 or 2 seconds , no one notices , you get more delay from your overloaded cable modem than from the browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>30\% this time is less than 30\% the last time they showed a speed  increase.Start off with 100\%, 30\% faster gives you 70\% of the original time.
Take off another 30\% and now you're doing it at 49\% of the original time.
Now remember, we're on the 5th iteration of XX\% faster, since the original chrome was XX\% faster than (whatever they were compare it to).Its not likely most people will notice a 30\% increase on most pages, especially Googles own pages.When you're talking about taking 30\% off of something that already loaded in 1 or 2 seconds, no one notices, you get more delay from your overloaded cable modem than from the browser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29996782</id>
	<title>uh...</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1257446100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you seem to be left on an island in history. i remember that island, it was somewhere around 2003 i think:</p><p>the thinking was that javascript was unnecessary bloat and a properly written website didn't need any javascript, and a good netizen concerned about safety and privacy turned his/her javascript off. people were (and are) doing harebrained unnecessary things with javascript (whoa dude! look at the animated cursor!) and incompatibility between browsers in an era when firefox was still a cult and ie5 was king meant nobody thought to program for anything but ie. and ie's javascript quirks meant anyone using any other browser was getting nothing but error messages anyways. so just turn javascript off</p><p>sorry dude, but the functionality AJAX delivers and how it fundamentally changes the browsing experience in powerful and positive ways utterly washed away any validity to that kind of thinking</p><p>but, enjoy your craiglist. i think that's the only site of any heft that came out of that era of web philosophy that survives today with the "pure HTML 3.2 ought to be good enough for anybody" attitude still intact</p><p>i think that anti-&lt;TABLE/&gt; jihad from that era is still going strong though. all hail the holy &lt;DIV/&gt;!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you seem to be left on an island in history .
i remember that island , it was somewhere around 2003 i think : the thinking was that javascript was unnecessary bloat and a properly written website did n't need any javascript , and a good netizen concerned about safety and privacy turned his/her javascript off .
people were ( and are ) doing harebrained unnecessary things with javascript ( whoa dude !
look at the animated cursor !
) and incompatibility between browsers in an era when firefox was still a cult and ie5 was king meant nobody thought to program for anything but ie .
and ie 's javascript quirks meant anyone using any other browser was getting nothing but error messages anyways .
so just turn javascript offsorry dude , but the functionality AJAX delivers and how it fundamentally changes the browsing experience in powerful and positive ways utterly washed away any validity to that kind of thinkingbut , enjoy your craiglist .
i think that 's the only site of any heft that came out of that era of web philosophy that survives today with the " pure HTML 3.2 ought to be good enough for anybody " attitude still intacti think that anti- jihad from that era is still going strong though .
all hail the holy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you seem to be left on an island in history.
i remember that island, it was somewhere around 2003 i think:the thinking was that javascript was unnecessary bloat and a properly written website didn't need any javascript, and a good netizen concerned about safety and privacy turned his/her javascript off.
people were (and are) doing harebrained unnecessary things with javascript (whoa dude!
look at the animated cursor!
) and incompatibility between browsers in an era when firefox was still a cult and ie5 was king meant nobody thought to program for anything but ie.
and ie's javascript quirks meant anyone using any other browser was getting nothing but error messages anyways.
so just turn javascript offsorry dude, but the functionality AJAX delivers and how it fundamentally changes the browsing experience in powerful and positive ways utterly washed away any validity to that kind of thinkingbut, enjoy your craiglist.
i think that's the only site of any heft that came out of that era of web philosophy that survives today with the "pure HTML 3.2 ought to be good enough for anybody" attitude still intacti think that anti- jihad from that era is still going strong though.
all hail the holy !</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990382</id>
	<title>JIT javascript</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257006480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I learned something interesting about Google's javascript parser while evaluating various parsers as potential candidates for a scripting engine in an application.  The reason it's so fast?  <a href="http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/article/HONSHI/20090106/163617/" title="nikkeibp.co.jp">It's got a JIT compiler</a> [nikkeibp.co.jp], just like modern Java runtimes.  This means that once things get going, JavaScript is going to approach native code speed.  Unfortunately it also limits the platforms on which the engine can run.  Google is targeting x86 (of course) and ARM (naturally, since they've got their eyes on the mobile market).  Interesting times...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I learned something interesting about Google 's javascript parser while evaluating various parsers as potential candidates for a scripting engine in an application .
The reason it 's so fast ?
It 's got a JIT compiler [ nikkeibp.co.jp ] , just like modern Java runtimes .
This means that once things get going , JavaScript is going to approach native code speed .
Unfortunately it also limits the platforms on which the engine can run .
Google is targeting x86 ( of course ) and ARM ( naturally , since they 've got their eyes on the mobile market ) .
Interesting times.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I learned something interesting about Google's javascript parser while evaluating various parsers as potential candidates for a scripting engine in an application.
The reason it's so fast?
It's got a JIT compiler [nikkeibp.co.jp], just like modern Java runtimes.
This means that once things get going, JavaScript is going to approach native code speed.
Unfortunately it also limits the platforms on which the engine can run.
Google is targeting x86 (of course) and ARM (naturally, since they've got their eyes on the mobile market).
Interesting times...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991052</id>
	<title>4.0.229.1 on OS X</title>
	<author>trapnest</author>
	<datestamp>1257012000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Password saving doesn't work on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/any/ website and the link to set up bookmark sync does nothing.</p><p>Weird thing is, the password saving feature used to work.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:\</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Password saving does n't work on /any/ website and the link to set up bookmark sync does nothing.Weird thing is , the password saving feature used to work .
: \</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Password saving doesn't work on /any/ website and the link to set up bookmark sync does nothing.Weird thing is, the password saving feature used to work.
:\</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990822</id>
	<title>Is it 30\% faster? Does it matter?</title>
	<author>pclminion</author>
	<datestamp>1257009960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it's kind of depressing that a 30\% speed increase in JavaScript processing is actually something which is interesting to talk about. Are web pages seriously doing that much fucking JavaScript that it's even PERCEPTIBLE to the user? That making it 30\% faster actually makes somebody's day suck a little less? That's sad. Sad, sad, sad.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's kind of depressing that a 30 \ % speed increase in JavaScript processing is actually something which is interesting to talk about .
Are web pages seriously doing that much fucking JavaScript that it 's even PERCEPTIBLE to the user ?
That making it 30 \ % faster actually makes somebody 's day suck a little less ?
That 's sad .
Sad , sad , sad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's kind of depressing that a 30\% speed increase in JavaScript processing is actually something which is interesting to talk about.
Are web pages seriously doing that much fucking JavaScript that it's even PERCEPTIBLE to the user?
That making it 30\% faster actually makes somebody's day suck a little less?
That's sad.
Sad, sad, sad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29994020</id>
	<title>Why Chrome never can be my browser:</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1257432180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because they will never ever include an ad-blocker.<br>Because Google is and advertising company. The biggest on the net in fact.</p><p>I know that there are tons of Google fanboys here on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. But I don't trust them more than any other ad company.<br>(And of course, as they are fanboys, they will never ever tolerate the existence of another view, or... basic facts... So prepare for this to get modded into oblivion as proof. ^^)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because they will never ever include an ad-blocker.Because Google is and advertising company .
The biggest on the net in fact.I know that there are tons of Google fanboys here on / .
But I do n't trust them more than any other ad company .
( And of course , as they are fanboys , they will never ever tolerate the existence of another view , or... basic facts... So prepare for this to get modded into oblivion as proof .
^ ^ )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because they will never ever include an ad-blocker.Because Google is and advertising company.
The biggest on the net in fact.I know that there are tons of Google fanboys here on /.
But I don't trust them more than any other ad company.
(And of course, as they are fanboys, they will never ever tolerate the existence of another view, or... basic facts... So prepare for this to get modded into oblivion as proof.
^^)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29993584</id>
	<title>With more X86 (64) SSE etc dependency?</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1257429720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bet Opera, Mozilla guys and even Apple can drive their browser to insane speeds but they wouldn't do it. Why? Basically, they want CPU Arch and OS independency. Things and times are changing, ARM Linux and Symbian (with upcoming foundation release) aren't some "nerd fantasies" anymore. Everyone wants to stay compatible with them.</p><p>If I told you that Opera 9.5 mobile runs exactly, line by line, same C rendering engine as Opera Desktop, would you believe? That is the level of compatibility and being future ready. It already paid off for Opera ASA and Mozilla Mobile would have a huge market share if they maintained a Symbian S60 (high end) variant rendering engine just to stay ready for future.</p><p>I wasn't planning to use Chrome and I found out they don't even support PowerPC OS X. That is not the OS X maintainers fault who is a very capable coder, thing is full of X86 specific unportable code, that is the issue. You/They may laugh at "so 100(!) powerpc users won't have our browsers" but I see a very different issue with it, for the future.</p><p>Why did MS Struggle to code/keep Windows NT codebase perfectly compilable and running on a strange RISC CPU (i860 I guess) which nobody plans to use? They had to use preview boards or something, there weren't even any servers/workstations actually \_using\_ that CPU.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet Opera , Mozilla guys and even Apple can drive their browser to insane speeds but they would n't do it .
Why ? Basically , they want CPU Arch and OS independency .
Things and times are changing , ARM Linux and Symbian ( with upcoming foundation release ) are n't some " nerd fantasies " anymore .
Everyone wants to stay compatible with them.If I told you that Opera 9.5 mobile runs exactly , line by line , same C rendering engine as Opera Desktop , would you believe ?
That is the level of compatibility and being future ready .
It already paid off for Opera ASA and Mozilla Mobile would have a huge market share if they maintained a Symbian S60 ( high end ) variant rendering engine just to stay ready for future.I was n't planning to use Chrome and I found out they do n't even support PowerPC OS X. That is not the OS X maintainers fault who is a very capable coder , thing is full of X86 specific unportable code , that is the issue .
You/They may laugh at " so 100 ( !
) powerpc users wo n't have our browsers " but I see a very different issue with it , for the future.Why did MS Struggle to code/keep Windows NT codebase perfectly compilable and running on a strange RISC CPU ( i860 I guess ) which nobody plans to use ?
They had to use preview boards or something , there were n't even any servers/workstations actually \ _using \ _ that CPU .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bet Opera, Mozilla guys and even Apple can drive their browser to insane speeds but they wouldn't do it.
Why? Basically, they want CPU Arch and OS independency.
Things and times are changing, ARM Linux and Symbian (with upcoming foundation release) aren't some "nerd fantasies" anymore.
Everyone wants to stay compatible with them.If I told you that Opera 9.5 mobile runs exactly, line by line, same C rendering engine as Opera Desktop, would you believe?
That is the level of compatibility and being future ready.
It already paid off for Opera ASA and Mozilla Mobile would have a huge market share if they maintained a Symbian S60 (high end) variant rendering engine just to stay ready for future.I wasn't planning to use Chrome and I found out they don't even support PowerPC OS X. That is not the OS X maintainers fault who is a very capable coder, thing is full of X86 specific unportable code, that is the issue.
You/They may laugh at "so 100(!
) powerpc users won't have our browsers" but I see a very different issue with it, for the future.Why did MS Struggle to code/keep Windows NT codebase perfectly compilable and running on a strange RISC CPU (i860 I guess) which nobody plans to use?
They had to use preview boards or something, there weren't even any servers/workstations actually \_using\_ that CPU.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29995762</id>
	<title>Re:Password Sync also please</title>
	<author>chaodyn</author>
	<datestamp>1257441240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bloated code - I think they may be able to skip "4" and go straight from "3" to "5".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bloated code - I think they may be able to skip " 4 " and go straight from " 3 " to " 5 " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bloated code - I think they may be able to skip "4" and go straight from "3" to "5".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990326</id>
	<title>Re:60\% faster loss of privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257006060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if only you could look at the source* to see that they are not doing that...wait what?</p><p>*and if you don't trust them compile your own</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if only you could look at the source * to see that they are not doing that...wait what ?
* and if you do n't trust them compile your own</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if only you could look at the source* to see that they are not doing that...wait what?
*and if you don't trust them compile your own</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29992504</id>
	<title>Re:60\% faster loss of privacy</title>
	<author>Jugalator</author>
	<datestamp>1257417480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I bet google would love to see your bookmarks, I bet advertisers would pay dearly for that sort of info.</p></div><p>I bet I don't care if advertisers know I like Slashdot.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet google would love to see your bookmarks , I bet advertisers would pay dearly for that sort of info.I bet I do n't care if advertisers know I like Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bet google would love to see your bookmarks, I bet advertisers would pay dearly for that sort of info.I bet I don't care if advertisers know I like Slashdot.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990466</id>
	<title>I see google fanboys modded you down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257006960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I won't install anything made by google, the most invasive parasite ever concieved</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wo n't install anything made by google , the most invasive parasite ever concieved</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I won't install anything made by google, the most invasive parasite ever concieved</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991566</id>
	<title>Yawn.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257016800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll stop snickering at it when it has adblock support.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll stop snickering at it when it has adblock support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll stop snickering at it when it has adblock support.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29993788</id>
	<title>Re:Smoking</title>
	<author>alexo</author>
	<datestamp>1257431100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm right there with you. Basically all of the free tools from Google have no serious competition in terms of quality.</p></div></blockquote><p>But competition is good, isn't it?<br>What does Mozilla plan to do to keep Firefox competitive?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm right there with you .
Basically all of the free tools from Google have no serious competition in terms of quality.But competition is good , is n't it ? What does Mozilla plan to do to keep Firefox competitive ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm right there with you.
Basically all of the free tools from Google have no serious competition in terms of quality.But competition is good, isn't it?What does Mozilla plan to do to keep Firefox competitive?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991922</id>
	<title>Enlighten me...</title>
	<author>mathfeel</author>
	<datestamp>1257452940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am on ubuntu and Chromium's about box shows 4.0.226.0.  Is this the same as the Windows version?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am on ubuntu and Chromium 's about box shows 4.0.226.0 .
Is this the same as the Windows version ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am on ubuntu and Chromium's about box shows 4.0.226.0.
Is this the same as the Windows version?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29996646</id>
	<title>Stored password encryption added?</title>
	<author>blahbooboo</author>
	<datestamp>1257445380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I love Chrome/Chromium/Iron. But I need to encrypt the stored passwords like Firefox does with the master password. Is this on track to be added?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love Chrome/Chromium/Iron .
But I need to encrypt the stored passwords like Firefox does with the master password .
Is this on track to be added ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love Chrome/Chromium/Iron.
But I need to encrypt the stored passwords like Firefox does with the master password.
Is this on track to be added?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991330</id>
	<title>Re:Password Sync also please</title>
	<author>LordLimecat</author>
	<datestamp>1257014460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Password sync is coming in version 4, as are extensions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Password sync is coming in version 4 , as are extensions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Password sync is coming in version 4, as are extensions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991344</id>
	<title>Re:Password Sync also please</title>
	<author>drizek</author>
	<datestamp>1257014580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use firefox on all my systems because of xmarks. I wish they would release it for hte Pre, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use firefox on all my systems because of xmarks .
I wish they would release it for hte Pre , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use firefox on all my systems because of xmarks.
I wish they would release it for hte Pre, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990876</id>
	<title>Re:60\% faster loss of privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257010440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>links visited != bookmarks</p><p>the links visited are usually a lot more fun</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>links visited ! = bookmarksthe links visited are usually a lot more fun</tokentext>
<sentencetext>links visited != bookmarksthe links visited are usually a lot more fun</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990090</id>
	<title>60\% faster loss of privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257004440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bet google would love to see your bookmarks, I bet advertisers would pay dearly for that sort of info.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet google would love to see your bookmarks , I bet advertisers would pay dearly for that sort of info .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bet google would love to see your bookmarks, I bet advertisers would pay dearly for that sort of info.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991864</id>
	<title>Re:Is it 30\% faster? Does it matter?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257452340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since you talk about "fucking JavaScript" -- yes, if I'm at a porn thumbnail gallery and Ctrl+Click to open fifteen different galleries each in its own tab, then Firefox grinds to a complete unusable halt for up to a MINUTE while it loads all those galleries. I don't know if the slowness comes from DOM or javascript or flash, but it's pretty bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since you talk about " fucking JavaScript " -- yes , if I 'm at a porn thumbnail gallery and Ctrl + Click to open fifteen different galleries each in its own tab , then Firefox grinds to a complete unusable halt for up to a MINUTE while it loads all those galleries .
I do n't know if the slowness comes from DOM or javascript or flash , but it 's pretty bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since you talk about "fucking JavaScript" -- yes, if I'm at a porn thumbnail gallery and Ctrl+Click to open fifteen different galleries each in its own tab, then Firefox grinds to a complete unusable halt for up to a MINUTE while it loads all those galleries.
I don't know if the slowness comes from DOM or javascript or flash, but it's pretty bad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990942</id>
	<title>Yeah?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257010980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, fuck you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , fuck you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, fuck you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990632</id>
	<title>How about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257008280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Doing something that makes firefox addons compatible with Chrome ? I mean its so fast, even if the addons slow it down somewhat it may still be faster than firefox.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Doing something that makes firefox addons compatible with Chrome ?
I mean its so fast , even if the addons slow it down somewhat it may still be faster than firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doing something that makes firefox addons compatible with Chrome ?
I mean its so fast, even if the addons slow it down somewhat it may still be faster than firefox.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29995738</id>
	<title>Re:Smoking -bah hum bug!</title>
	<author>Reckless Visionary</author>
	<datestamp>1257441120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm been using it on Ubuntu for a while now. .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.not sure what you mean.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm been using it on Ubuntu for a while now .
. .not sure what you mean .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm been using it on Ubuntu for a while now.
. .not sure what you mean.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991428</id>
	<title>Re:Is it 30\% faster? Does it matter?</title>
	<author>LordLimecat</author>
	<datestamp>1257015480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ummmm... Slashdot?  Google Wave?  Yahoo Mail?  Google Mail?   Facebook?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ummmm... Slashdot ? Google Wave ?
Yahoo Mail ?
Google Mail ?
Facebook ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ummmm... Slashdot?  Google Wave?
Yahoo Mail?
Google Mail?
Facebook?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990370</id>
	<title>Re:Cheating on my first love - Firefox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257006300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I get annoyed when I try to scroll a window in Chrome and it's so fast I can't control it easily.</p><p>I'll be keeping firefox around for as long as there's no adblock and no flashblock for Chrome.  Chrome wins the instant they're compatible with Mozilla plugins.</p><p>I'm glad that there's once again some vibrant competition in the browser sphere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I get annoyed when I try to scroll a window in Chrome and it 's so fast I ca n't control it easily.I 'll be keeping firefox around for as long as there 's no adblock and no flashblock for Chrome .
Chrome wins the instant they 're compatible with Mozilla plugins.I 'm glad that there 's once again some vibrant competition in the browser sphere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I get annoyed when I try to scroll a window in Chrome and it's so fast I can't control it easily.I'll be keeping firefox around for as long as there's no adblock and no flashblock for Chrome.
Chrome wins the instant they're compatible with Mozilla plugins.I'm glad that there's once again some vibrant competition in the browser sphere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991976</id>
	<title>Re:JIT javascript</title>
	<author>unwastaken</author>
	<datestamp>1257453660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been looking into GPG a bit lately. I was thinking it would be nice if you could have encryption in javascript for webmail.
<br> <br>
I found some javascript that can encrypt, but not decrypt, GPG messages.  Apparently decryption is very slow in javascript, and possibly there isn't support for the large numbers needed for decryption?  But maybe JIT would be fast enough, allowing math libraries to be used to support the large calculations needed.
<br> <br>
As far as extensions go, I won't be using Chrome until it has a tree style tab extension.  I can't live without that anymore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been looking into GPG a bit lately .
I was thinking it would be nice if you could have encryption in javascript for webmail .
I found some javascript that can encrypt , but not decrypt , GPG messages .
Apparently decryption is very slow in javascript , and possibly there is n't support for the large numbers needed for decryption ?
But maybe JIT would be fast enough , allowing math libraries to be used to support the large calculations needed .
As far as extensions go , I wo n't be using Chrome until it has a tree style tab extension .
I ca n't live without that anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been looking into GPG a bit lately.
I was thinking it would be nice if you could have encryption in javascript for webmail.
I found some javascript that can encrypt, but not decrypt, GPG messages.
Apparently decryption is very slow in javascript, and possibly there isn't support for the large numbers needed for decryption?
But maybe JIT would be fast enough, allowing math libraries to be used to support the large calculations needed.
As far as extensions go, I won't be using Chrome until it has a tree style tab extension.
I can't live without that anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991018</id>
	<title>Re:Is it 30\% faster? Does it matter?</title>
	<author>Temporal</author>
	<datestamp>1257011700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a common mistake developers make -- they think "Do users really care if this page loads a tenth of a second faster?  It's such a short time that it should make no difference".  In reality, though, such performance improvements make things "feel" better.  You will spend more time on a site or in an app that responds faster, because you will enjoy using it more, even if you don't realize why.</p><p>Also, the faster Javascript is, the more of it sites can use in the future -- hopefully for improving their user experience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a common mistake developers make -- they think " Do users really care if this page loads a tenth of a second faster ?
It 's such a short time that it should make no difference " .
In reality , though , such performance improvements make things " feel " better .
You will spend more time on a site or in an app that responds faster , because you will enjoy using it more , even if you do n't realize why.Also , the faster Javascript is , the more of it sites can use in the future -- hopefully for improving their user experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a common mistake developers make -- they think "Do users really care if this page loads a tenth of a second faster?
It's such a short time that it should make no difference".
In reality, though, such performance improvements make things "feel" better.
You will spend more time on a site or in an app that responds faster, because you will enjoy using it more, even if you don't realize why.Also, the faster Javascript is, the more of it sites can use in the future -- hopefully for improving their user experience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990744</id>
	<title>Re:Cheating on my first love - Firefox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257009180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Like a slut that wins you over with fantastic sex, Chrome got me where it matters most - raw speed.</p></div><p>You like fast sex? I prefer it to last...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like a slut that wins you over with fantastic sex , Chrome got me where it matters most - raw speed.You like fast sex ?
I prefer it to last.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like a slut that wins you over with fantastic sex, Chrome got me where it matters most - raw speed.You like fast sex?
I prefer it to last...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.30026672</id>
	<title>Re:100\% less advertisements would be nice...</title>
	<author>DaVince21</author>
	<datestamp>1257685200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.chromeextensions.org/appearance-functioning/adblock/" title="chromeextensions.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.chromeextensions.org/appearance-functioning/adblock/</a> [chromeextensions.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.chromeextensions.org/appearance-functioning/adblock/ [ chromeextensions.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.chromeextensions.org/appearance-functioning/adblock/ [chromeextensions.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29999152</id>
	<title>Re:Cheating on my first love - Firefox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257413280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chrome also needs to add the ability to authenticate automatically on Windows domains so that corporate websites work seamlessly without having to endure login popups. In Firefox you can do it by changing a parameter in about:chrome, but it's still not as easy as checking something in the options GUI (which is where they should have it). Chrome does not have that feature at all (it might come out of the summer of code, but it's not there yet)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chrome also needs to add the ability to authenticate automatically on Windows domains so that corporate websites work seamlessly without having to endure login popups .
In Firefox you can do it by changing a parameter in about : chrome , but it 's still not as easy as checking something in the options GUI ( which is where they should have it ) .
Chrome does not have that feature at all ( it might come out of the summer of code , but it 's not there yet )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chrome also needs to add the ability to authenticate automatically on Windows domains so that corporate websites work seamlessly without having to endure login popups.
In Firefox you can do it by changing a parameter in about:chrome, but it's still not as easy as checking something in the options GUI (which is where they should have it).
Chrome does not have that feature at all (it might come out of the summer of code, but it's not there yet)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991952</id>
	<title>Re:Cheating on my first love - Firefox</title>
	<author>SanityInAnarchy</author>
	<datestamp>1257453360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, you're proving those people's point:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>sure, maybe Java/garbage-collection/50mb-binaries/etc. are a little slower,</p></div><p>Let's see...</p><p>chromium-browser is a 38 meg binary on my system, and that's just the binary. The libraries it distributes bump it up above 40 megs, and it's probably easily 45 or 50 with all the system libraries it pulls in.</p><p>Here's an example of where you're both very right, and very wrong:</p><p>You're very right in that speed still matters, and always will. By applying a little optimization at just the right point, we gain massive speed boosts for everyone. For example, Webkit instead of Gecko, and all the little tweaks of v8, make Chrome's HTML, Javascript, and CSS at least on par with, and usually several times better than the competition.</p><p>On the other hand, you're entirely wrong about the argument you've used. Tons of stuff in Chrome, including the entire extension API, is done entirely in HTML and Javascript, because they are <i>fast enough</i>. I'll give you a stupidly simple example: Hit "new tab". That entire New Tab page is HTML and Javascript.</p><p>Want proof? Ctrl+U.</p><p>Want more? Next time you start a download, open the download list/manager. HTML and Javascript. In fact, the only things that aren't HTML and Javascript are the Chrome itself -- the toolbar, tab bar, and status bar. Even the toolstrip bar, managed by extensions, is mostly HTML and Javascript.</p><p>At a lower level, much of the core Javascript library in Chrome is, in fact, written in Javascript.</p><p>Guess what? Javascript is a little slower than C++. It's also garbage-collected.</p><p>Guess what else? Even if you could theoretically do these pages in C++, programmer productivity is still more important.</p><p>What did we learn?</p><p><b>Premature optimization is the root of all evil.</b> Chrome is fast not because speed <i>always</i> matters, but because speed matters at the specific points they targeted.</p><p>If you know anything about Javascript, you know how difficult it must have been for the v8 team -- yet if you look at the v8 presentation, much of the optimization they do is remarkably obvious in hindsight. So the second thing we learned is that <b>Java is not slow.</b> A language is generally not fast or slow, by its very nature -- while some aspects of language design can make it easier or harder to optimize a language, it is ultimately the <i>implementation</i> that is fast or slow.</p><p>Conventional wisdom (like what you're spouting) says Javascript is slow. Chrome proves otherwise. Remember that the next time anyone says something as stupid as "Ruby is slow."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , you 're proving those people 's point : sure , maybe Java/garbage-collection/50mb-binaries/etc .
are a little slower,Let 's see...chromium-browser is a 38 meg binary on my system , and that 's just the binary .
The libraries it distributes bump it up above 40 megs , and it 's probably easily 45 or 50 with all the system libraries it pulls in.Here 's an example of where you 're both very right , and very wrong : You 're very right in that speed still matters , and always will .
By applying a little optimization at just the right point , we gain massive speed boosts for everyone .
For example , Webkit instead of Gecko , and all the little tweaks of v8 , make Chrome 's HTML , Javascript , and CSS at least on par with , and usually several times better than the competition.On the other hand , you 're entirely wrong about the argument you 've used .
Tons of stuff in Chrome , including the entire extension API , is done entirely in HTML and Javascript , because they are fast enough .
I 'll give you a stupidly simple example : Hit " new tab " .
That entire New Tab page is HTML and Javascript.Want proof ?
Ctrl + U.Want more ?
Next time you start a download , open the download list/manager .
HTML and Javascript .
In fact , the only things that are n't HTML and Javascript are the Chrome itself -- the toolbar , tab bar , and status bar .
Even the toolstrip bar , managed by extensions , is mostly HTML and Javascript.At a lower level , much of the core Javascript library in Chrome is , in fact , written in Javascript.Guess what ?
Javascript is a little slower than C + + .
It 's also garbage-collected.Guess what else ?
Even if you could theoretically do these pages in C + + , programmer productivity is still more important.What did we learn ? Premature optimization is the root of all evil .
Chrome is fast not because speed always matters , but because speed matters at the specific points they targeted.If you know anything about Javascript , you know how difficult it must have been for the v8 team -- yet if you look at the v8 presentation , much of the optimization they do is remarkably obvious in hindsight .
So the second thing we learned is that Java is not slow .
A language is generally not fast or slow , by its very nature -- while some aspects of language design can make it easier or harder to optimize a language , it is ultimately the implementation that is fast or slow.Conventional wisdom ( like what you 're spouting ) says Javascript is slow .
Chrome proves otherwise .
Remember that the next time anyone says something as stupid as " Ruby is slow .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, you're proving those people's point:sure, maybe Java/garbage-collection/50mb-binaries/etc.
are a little slower,Let's see...chromium-browser is a 38 meg binary on my system, and that's just the binary.
The libraries it distributes bump it up above 40 megs, and it's probably easily 45 or 50 with all the system libraries it pulls in.Here's an example of where you're both very right, and very wrong:You're very right in that speed still matters, and always will.
By applying a little optimization at just the right point, we gain massive speed boosts for everyone.
For example, Webkit instead of Gecko, and all the little tweaks of v8, make Chrome's HTML, Javascript, and CSS at least on par with, and usually several times better than the competition.On the other hand, you're entirely wrong about the argument you've used.
Tons of stuff in Chrome, including the entire extension API, is done entirely in HTML and Javascript, because they are fast enough.
I'll give you a stupidly simple example: Hit "new tab".
That entire New Tab page is HTML and Javascript.Want proof?
Ctrl+U.Want more?
Next time you start a download, open the download list/manager.
HTML and Javascript.
In fact, the only things that aren't HTML and Javascript are the Chrome itself -- the toolbar, tab bar, and status bar.
Even the toolstrip bar, managed by extensions, is mostly HTML and Javascript.At a lower level, much of the core Javascript library in Chrome is, in fact, written in Javascript.Guess what?
Javascript is a little slower than C++.
It's also garbage-collected.Guess what else?
Even if you could theoretically do these pages in C++, programmer productivity is still more important.What did we learn?Premature optimization is the root of all evil.
Chrome is fast not because speed always matters, but because speed matters at the specific points they targeted.If you know anything about Javascript, you know how difficult it must have been for the v8 team -- yet if you look at the v8 presentation, much of the optimization they do is remarkably obvious in hindsight.
So the second thing we learned is that Java is not slow.
A language is generally not fast or slow, by its very nature -- while some aspects of language design can make it easier or harder to optimize a language, it is ultimately the implementation that is fast or slow.Conventional wisdom (like what you're spouting) says Javascript is slow.
Chrome proves otherwise.
Remember that the next time anyone says something as stupid as "Ruby is slow.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991418</id>
	<title>Thats why...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257015360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>you haven't tried google wave yet, or gmail.<br><br>80\% of my internet experience... ok, its porn.<br><br>But the 80\% of the other 20\% is gmail, facebook, and the same 4 o 5 news sites that i read everyday in netvibes.com (xkcd and youtube are there).<br><br>The other 20\% is watching TVShows in megavideo, downloading books or atricles i need, adium &amp; skype.<br><br>So I do care about javascript speed, i do care a lot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>you have n't tried google wave yet , or gmail.80 \ % of my internet experience... ok , its porn.But the 80 \ % of the other 20 \ % is gmail , facebook , and the same 4 o 5 news sites that i read everyday in netvibes.com ( xkcd and youtube are there ) .The other 20 \ % is watching TVShows in megavideo , downloading books or atricles i need , adium &amp; skype.So I do care about javascript speed , i do care a lot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you haven't tried google wave yet, or gmail.80\% of my internet experience... ok, its porn.But the 80\% of the other 20\% is gmail, facebook, and the same 4 o 5 news sites that i read everyday in netvibes.com (xkcd and youtube are there).The other 20\% is watching TVShows in megavideo, downloading books or atricles i need, adium &amp; skype.So I do care about javascript speed, i do care a lot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991830</id>
	<title>Re:Cheating on my first love - Firefox</title>
	<author>SanityInAnarchy</author>
	<datestamp>1257451680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So let's see...</p><p>The AC has already mentioned some userscripts. I've written one that uses CouchDB and works as a native Chrome extension.</p><p>And you probably want to look for the SmoothScroll extension. It doesn't work for all webpages, but when it works, it works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So let 's see...The AC has already mentioned some userscripts .
I 've written one that uses CouchDB and works as a native Chrome extension.And you probably want to look for the SmoothScroll extension .
It does n't work for all webpages , but when it works , it works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So let's see...The AC has already mentioned some userscripts.
I've written one that uses CouchDB and works as a native Chrome extension.And you probably want to look for the SmoothScroll extension.
It doesn't work for all webpages, but when it works, it works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991540</id>
	<title>Re:Smoking -bah hum bug!</title>
	<author>shoemilk</author>
	<datestamp>1257016500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Loads reddit.com and slashdot.com almost instantly</p></div><p> Dude, it could give me a handjob while it loaded my porn for me, but until it runs on a OS not made by MS, I don't care.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Loads reddit.com and slashdot.com almost instantly Dude , it could give me a handjob while it loaded my porn for me , but until it runs on a OS not made by MS , I do n't care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Loads reddit.com and slashdot.com almost instantly Dude, it could give me a handjob while it loaded my porn for me, but until it runs on a OS not made by MS, I don't care.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990314</id>
	<title>100\% less advertisements would be nice...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257006000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No AdBlock, No mouse gestures... No Chrome<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No AdBlock , No mouse gestures... No Chrome : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No AdBlock, No mouse gestures... No Chrome :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29997844</id>
	<title>Re:Cheating on my first love - Firefox</title>
	<author>curunir</author>
	<datestamp>1257451020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...because no other browser comes with the enterprise management tools necessary for large deployments.</p></div><p>It may not be everything that IE has, but there are third-party builds of Firefox designed for enterprise deployment and management.</p><p>See <a href="http://www.frontmotion.com/Firefox/fmfirefox.htm" title="frontmotion.com">here</a> [frontmotion.com], for one example.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...because no other browser comes with the enterprise management tools necessary for large deployments.It may not be everything that IE has , but there are third-party builds of Firefox designed for enterprise deployment and management.See here [ frontmotion.com ] , for one example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...because no other browser comes with the enterprise management tools necessary for large deployments.It may not be everything that IE has, but there are third-party builds of Firefox designed for enterprise deployment and management.See here [frontmotion.com], for one example.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29995704</id>
	<title>Does anyone still use Chrome</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257441000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I started using Chrome right away and was surprised how mature it was. But I've stopped using it and have gone back to firefox because chrome is so unstable. The last straw was when it couldn't even render my igoogle home page correctly. I am not going to use a browser which breaks every few weeks and then I have to wait for a couple of days while they fix a regression bug. I like their architectural concepts and the great Javascript support and all but in the end I don't notice the speed and the stability is unacceptable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I started using Chrome right away and was surprised how mature it was .
But I 've stopped using it and have gone back to firefox because chrome is so unstable .
The last straw was when it could n't even render my igoogle home page correctly .
I am not going to use a browser which breaks every few weeks and then I have to wait for a couple of days while they fix a regression bug .
I like their architectural concepts and the great Javascript support and all but in the end I do n't notice the speed and the stability is unacceptable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I started using Chrome right away and was surprised how mature it was.
But I've stopped using it and have gone back to firefox because chrome is so unstable.
The last straw was when it couldn't even render my igoogle home page correctly.
I am not going to use a browser which breaks every few weeks and then I have to wait for a couple of days while they fix a regression bug.
I like their architectural concepts and the great Javascript support and all but in the end I don't notice the speed and the stability is unacceptable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29992374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29995226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29993192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29999152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29993944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29993980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29994174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29993304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29996782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29992528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29994872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.30001344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29994020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.30004054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29992928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29996224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29994002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29992078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29992910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.30001868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.30014170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29997026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.30026672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29993098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29993596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29993788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29992074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29997844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29994418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29992100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29993978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29993500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29995762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.30002344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29994020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29997052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.30026604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29992892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29992504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29995738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29994640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29992904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29992882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2345244_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2345244.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991180
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991952
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29996224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990330
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29995226
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990910
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991970
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990966
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990998
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29992904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990370
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.30002344
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29992892
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990532
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.30026604
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29997844
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991168
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29999152
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991874
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.30001868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990460
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2345244.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29994174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29993596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990902
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29992882
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29993788
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29992910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991540
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29995738
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29993944
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2345244.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29997026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.30014170
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2345244.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991422
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2345244.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29994020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.30004054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29997052
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2345244.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991330
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29993098
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29992528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.30001344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991792
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29994872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990566
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29992928
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29995762
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2345244.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991566
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2345244.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29992504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29993978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29992374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29993500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29994418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990326
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991582
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990606
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29994002
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29993980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990448
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990876
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991310
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29992074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990432
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2345244.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.30026672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991112
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2345244.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29996782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29992100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29994640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29993304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29993192
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2345244.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990366
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2345244.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991950
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2345244.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990778
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2345244.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29991688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29992078
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2345244.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990696
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2345244.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29995704
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2345244.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2345244.29990984
</commentlist>
</conversation>
