<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_10_1922206</id>
	<title>EC Formally Objects To Oracle's Purchase of Sun</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1257845160000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:my/.username@@@gmail.com" rel="nofollow">eldavojohn</a> writes <i>"The EC has <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/11/10/eu-sun-oracle.html">presented Oracle and Sun with a statement of objections</a>. Despite the <a href="//developers.slashdot.org/story/09/10/10/1556204/Mickos-Urges-EU-To-Approve-Oracles-MySQL-Takeover">promotion of former MySQL CEO Marten Mickos</a>, the statement seems to focus entirely on
what many have feared: MySQL vs. Oracle databases. From <a href="http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/709519/000118143109050589/rrd256710.htm">Sun's 8-K SEC filing</a>: 'The Statement of Objections sets out the Commission's preliminary assessment regarding, and is limited to, the combination of Sun's open source MySQL database product with Oracle's enterprise database products and its potential negative effects on competition in the
market for database products.' The EU and the EC are getting a rep for <a href="http://developers.slashdot.org/story/09/08/23/125211/DOJ-Gives-Oracle-Approval-To-Buy-Sun">disagreeing with US counterparts</a>."</i> On Monday afternoon the DoJ <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/database/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=221601079">reiterated its support</a> for the deal. Matthew Aslett has a <a href="http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2009/10/26/everything-you-always-wanted-to-know-about-mysql-but-were-afraid-to-ask/">helpful timeline</a> of the action from the EC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>eldavojohn writes " The EC has presented Oracle and Sun with a statement of objections .
Despite the promotion of former MySQL CEO Marten Mickos , the statement seems to focus entirely on what many have feared : MySQL vs. Oracle databases .
From Sun 's 8-K SEC filing : 'The Statement of Objections sets out the Commission 's preliminary assessment regarding , and is limited to , the combination of Sun 's open source MySQL database product with Oracle 's enterprise database products and its potential negative effects on competition in the market for database products .
' The EU and the EC are getting a rep for disagreeing with US counterparts .
" On Monday afternoon the DoJ reiterated its support for the deal .
Matthew Aslett has a helpful timeline of the action from the EC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eldavojohn writes "The EC has presented Oracle and Sun with a statement of objections.
Despite the promotion of former MySQL CEO Marten Mickos, the statement seems to focus entirely on
what many have feared: MySQL vs. Oracle databases.
From Sun's 8-K SEC filing: 'The Statement of Objections sets out the Commission's preliminary assessment regarding, and is limited to, the combination of Sun's open source MySQL database product with Oracle's enterprise database products and its potential negative effects on competition in the
market for database products.
' The EU and the EC are getting a rep for disagreeing with US counterparts.
" On Monday afternoon the DoJ reiterated its support for the deal.
Matthew Aslett has a helpful timeline of the action from the EC.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052316</id>
	<title>Re:F the EC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257851100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously, what can the EC do about it?</p></div><p>Forbid them from selling their stuff in the EU. Somewhere between a quarter and a third of Oracles income comes from the EU. That is a significant amount of money they cannot afford to lose.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , what can the EC do about it ? Forbid them from selling their stuff in the EU .
Somewhere between a quarter and a third of Oracles income comes from the EU .
That is a significant amount of money they can not afford to lose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, what can the EC do about it?Forbid them from selling their stuff in the EU.
Somewhere between a quarter and a third of Oracles income comes from the EU.
That is a significant amount of money they cannot afford to lose.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052398</id>
	<title>Re:F the EC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257851460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The EC is much better at standing up to badly behaved companies than America. What they can do is fine any company which does work in Europe.</p><p>Are you serious suggesting not selling to the EU? The EU is bigger than America, world-wide the EU could well make up at least a third of all sales that Oracle or Sun makes. Of course they aren't going to throw that away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The EC is much better at standing up to badly behaved companies than America .
What they can do is fine any company which does work in Europe.Are you serious suggesting not selling to the EU ?
The EU is bigger than America , world-wide the EU could well make up at least a third of all sales that Oracle or Sun makes .
Of course they are n't going to throw that away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The EC is much better at standing up to badly behaved companies than America.
What they can do is fine any company which does work in Europe.Are you serious suggesting not selling to the EU?
The EU is bigger than America, world-wide the EU could well make up at least a third of all sales that Oracle or Sun makes.
Of course they aren't going to throw that away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052192</id>
	<title>Re:Mod parent up</title>
	<author>h4rr4r</author>
	<datestamp>1257850680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why don't you just move along then?</p><p>Does this site really need to dumb down like the rest of the world?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't you just move along then ? Does this site really need to dumb down like the rest of the world ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't you just move along then?Does this site really need to dumb down like the rest of the world?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052516</id>
	<title>Re:F the EC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257851880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they care because they sell to the EU. it makes up for more of their business than it used to since the USA is going down the shitter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they care because they sell to the EU .
it makes up for more of their business than it used to since the USA is going down the shitter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they care because they sell to the EU.
it makes up for more of their business than it used to since the USA is going down the shitter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30062570</id>
	<title>Re:F the EC</title>
	<author>jackspenn</author>
	<datestamp>1257100740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What if I or anyone forked mySQL, merely combined for source and called it "SQL Reimagined", but it is pretty much mySQL with a name change.  I keep the same OSS license and get a few fellow<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.ers to form a little support community.  We are founded with a single purpose "To keep an alternative to Oracle influences alive".  Then the EC wouldn't have any LEGAL foundation for being concerned with a Sun\_Oracle merger.  Think they would drop issues they have raised against Oracle/Sun?  Not likely, not unless Oracle paid the EC to be left alone or IBM failed to pay the EC to harass Oracle.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if I or anyone forked mySQL , merely combined for source and called it " SQL Reimagined " , but it is pretty much mySQL with a name change .
I keep the same OSS license and get a few fellow /.ers to form a little support community .
We are founded with a single purpose " To keep an alternative to Oracle influences alive " .
Then the EC would n't have any LEGAL foundation for being concerned with a Sun \ _Oracle merger .
Think they would drop issues they have raised against Oracle/Sun ?
Not likely , not unless Oracle paid the EC to be left alone or IBM failed to pay the EC to harass Oracle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if I or anyone forked mySQL, merely combined for source and called it "SQL Reimagined", but it is pretty much mySQL with a name change.
I keep the same OSS license and get a few fellow /.ers to form a little support community.
We are founded with a single purpose "To keep an alternative to Oracle influences alive".
Then the EC wouldn't have any LEGAL foundation for being concerned with a Sun\_Oracle merger.
Think they would drop issues they have raised against Oracle/Sun?
Not likely, not unless Oracle paid the EC to be left alone or IBM failed to pay the EC to harass Oracle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30059600</id>
	<title>but How will the corn grow?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257088320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh no, Since the Oracle can not buy the sun. Me must get the moon, so he can still predict the furture.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh no , Since the Oracle can not buy the sun .
Me must get the moon , so he can still predict the furture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh no, Since the Oracle can not buy the sun.
Me must get the moon, so he can still predict the furture.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052414</id>
	<title>Re:F the EC</title>
	<author>Improv</author>
	<datestamp>1257851520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's nothing wrong about the EC trying to prevent monopolies/unacceptable mergers. They have a say too, because these companies operate there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's nothing wrong about the EC trying to prevent monopolies/unacceptable mergers .
They have a say too , because these companies operate there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's nothing wrong about the EC trying to prevent monopolies/unacceptable mergers.
They have a say too, because these companies operate there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30058406</id>
	<title>Re:I object</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257078480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope you get shafted up your sphincter Ms. Kroes!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope you get shafted up your sphincter Ms. Kroes !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope you get shafted up your sphincter Ms. Kroes!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30054674</id>
	<title>Re:Mod parent up</title>
	<author>init100</author>
	<datestamp>1257864300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Defining acronyms isn't <i>dumbing down</i>, it's just standard academic practice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Defining acronyms is n't dumbing down , it 's just standard academic practice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Defining acronyms isn't dumbing down, it's just standard academic practice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052472</id>
	<title>Re:Why does Oracle need MySQL anyway?</title>
	<author>NoYob</author>
	<datestamp>1257851700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I seriously don't see why Oracle needs MySQL.</p></div><p>Product mix - as the marketing guys call it. MySQL has a market that Oracle doesn't. How many folks use Oracle as their back end for their websites? Now they have products that cover more of the market for RDMSs; which I believe, makes them the leader, but by no means able to control the market as the EC fears.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I seriously do n't see why Oracle needs MySQL.Product mix - as the marketing guys call it .
MySQL has a market that Oracle does n't .
How many folks use Oracle as their back end for their websites ?
Now they have products that cover more of the market for RDMSs ; which I believe , makes them the leader , but by no means able to control the market as the EC fears .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I seriously don't see why Oracle needs MySQL.Product mix - as the marketing guys call it.
MySQL has a market that Oracle doesn't.
How many folks use Oracle as their back end for their websites?
Now they have products that cover more of the market for RDMSs; which I believe, makes them the leader, but by no means able to control the market as the EC fears.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30055962</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257871980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if you went to oracle and asked if they can sell you a low-end database, what would they say? my guess is that you wouldn't be turned away in either case. of course oracle wants to sell small businesses oracle db.</p><p>the idea that the low and high and markets are mutually exclusive, that mysql and oracle don't compete is hogwash. sure, right now oracle owns the high end market, and mysql owns the low end market<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but that's just how the market has worked out. oracle / sun are acting they are essentially different products.</p><p>regardless, every database deployment doesn't fall neatly into &quot;large&quot; and &quot;small&quot;. there is certainly of lot of area where the two database directly compete.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if you went to oracle and asked if they can sell you a low-end database , what would they say ?
my guess is that you would n't be turned away in either case .
of course oracle wants to sell small businesses oracle db.the idea that the low and high and markets are mutually exclusive , that mysql and oracle do n't compete is hogwash .
sure , right now oracle owns the high end market , and mysql owns the low end market ... but that 's just how the market has worked out .
oracle / sun are acting they are essentially different products.regardless , every database deployment does n't fall neatly into " large " and " small " .
there is certainly of lot of area where the two database directly compete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you went to oracle and asked if they can sell you a low-end database, what would they say?
my guess is that you wouldn't be turned away in either case.
of course oracle wants to sell small businesses oracle db.the idea that the low and high and markets are mutually exclusive, that mysql and oracle don't compete is hogwash.
sure, right now oracle owns the high end market, and mysql owns the low end market ... but that's just how the market has worked out.
oracle / sun are acting they are essentially different products.regardless, every database deployment doesn't fall neatly into "large" and "small".
there is certainly of lot of area where the two database directly compete.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052130</id>
	<title>Re:Mod parent up</title>
	<author>DAldredge</author>
	<datestamp>1257850440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>And I am tired of people posting on a site for nerds who want the site dumbed down because it's too hard to search for somthing themselves.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And I am tired of people posting on a site for nerds who want the site dumbed down because it 's too hard to search for somthing themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I am tired of people posting on a site for nerds who want the site dumbed down because it's too hard to search for somthing themselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051886</id>
	<title>Re:Okay...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257849420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go back to digg, slashdot does not need more folks who can't even use google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go back to digg , slashdot does not need more folks who ca n't even use google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go back to digg, slashdot does not need more folks who can't even use google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30053748</id>
	<title>Re:Is company health considered?</title>
	<author>jrumney</author>
	<datestamp>1257858420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sirius and XM affect only US consumers, so the EU has no interest in getting involved. In the case of Sun and Oracle, you are talking about two large US based companies that already dwarf most European competitors in their own market (if there are any left that Oracle doesn't own yet), so there is incentive for the EU to make sure that the new even larger company is not going to disadvantage European companies.  It isn't the EU's concern if Sun cannot survive if keeping it alive by merging with Oracle is going to result in half a dozen European companies going out of business.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sirius and XM affect only US consumers , so the EU has no interest in getting involved .
In the case of Sun and Oracle , you are talking about two large US based companies that already dwarf most European competitors in their own market ( if there are any left that Oracle does n't own yet ) , so there is incentive for the EU to make sure that the new even larger company is not going to disadvantage European companies .
It is n't the EU 's concern if Sun can not survive if keeping it alive by merging with Oracle is going to result in half a dozen European companies going out of business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sirius and XM affect only US consumers, so the EU has no interest in getting involved.
In the case of Sun and Oracle, you are talking about two large US based companies that already dwarf most European competitors in their own market (if there are any left that Oracle doesn't own yet), so there is incentive for the EU to make sure that the new even larger company is not going to disadvantage European companies.
It isn't the EU's concern if Sun cannot survive if keeping it alive by merging with Oracle is going to result in half a dozen European companies going out of business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30056058</id>
	<title>US v. EU</title>
	<author>jhylkema</author>
	<datestamp>1257872880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The EU and the EC are getting a rep for disagreeing with US counterparts.</i></p><p>They're getting a rep for doing their jobs, in other words.  The same cannot be said for their U.S. counterparts who have assumed the role of the fox guarding the hen house.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The EU and the EC are getting a rep for disagreeing with US counterparts.They 're getting a rep for doing their jobs , in other words .
The same can not be said for their U.S. counterparts who have assumed the role of the fox guarding the hen house .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The EU and the EC are getting a rep for disagreeing with US counterparts.They're getting a rep for doing their jobs, in other words.
The same cannot be said for their U.S. counterparts who have assumed the role of the fox guarding the hen house.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30057522</id>
	<title>Re:I Object!</title>
	<author>jandersen</author>
	<datestamp>1257067620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well, I'd object to their purchasing the sun as well!!</p></div><p>I'm not so much against it as completely flabbergasted. What does a database vendor want with a newspaper? And especially one as arguably despicable at The Sun: <a href="http://www.thesun.co.uk/" title="thesun.co.uk">http://www.thesun.co.uk</a> [thesun.co.uk]?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I 'd object to their purchasing the sun as well !
! I 'm not so much against it as completely flabbergasted .
What does a database vendor want with a newspaper ?
And especially one as arguably despicable at The Sun : http : //www.thesun.co.uk [ thesun.co.uk ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I'd object to their purchasing the sun as well!
!I'm not so much against it as completely flabbergasted.
What does a database vendor want with a newspaper?
And especially one as arguably despicable at The Sun: http://www.thesun.co.uk [thesun.co.uk]?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30053378</id>
	<title>Why let the EU interfere?</title>
	<author>KetamineNinja</author>
	<datestamp>1257856320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Honestly I dont know why Oracle doesnt just tell the EC to cram it, they're US based companies, and what are the EC going to do? Sanction them? How well do you think it would go down if no one in europe could use Oracle or MySQL anymore?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly I dont know why Oracle doesnt just tell the EC to cram it , they 're US based companies , and what are the EC going to do ?
Sanction them ?
How well do you think it would go down if no one in europe could use Oracle or MySQL anymore ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly I dont know why Oracle doesnt just tell the EC to cram it, they're US based companies, and what are the EC going to do?
Sanction them?
How well do you think it would go down if no one in europe could use Oracle or MySQL anymore?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30060850</id>
	<title>There at EU are morons</title>
	<author>hotfireball</author>
	<datestamp>1257093720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These fucking morons only doing shit to people. Frenchies pushing brain-dead laws, lobbied by M$ and now they are fucking with Oracle. Stupid dickheads, they know zero about Drizzle (MySQL fork), PostgreSQL and other open source players.</p><p>So MySQL is not really a deal. Real deal is that Microsoft and IBM does not likes Oracle purchase and here I suspect black money to block acquiring Sun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These fucking morons only doing shit to people .
Frenchies pushing brain-dead laws , lobbied by M $ and now they are fucking with Oracle .
Stupid dickheads , they know zero about Drizzle ( MySQL fork ) , PostgreSQL and other open source players.So MySQL is not really a deal .
Real deal is that Microsoft and IBM does not likes Oracle purchase and here I suspect black money to block acquiring Sun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These fucking morons only doing shit to people.
Frenchies pushing brain-dead laws, lobbied by M$ and now they are fucking with Oracle.
Stupid dickheads, they know zero about Drizzle (MySQL fork), PostgreSQL and other open source players.So MySQL is not really a deal.
Real deal is that Microsoft and IBM does not likes Oracle purchase and here I suspect black money to block acquiring Sun.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052266</id>
	<title>Re:Is company health considered?</title>
	<author>Znork</author>
	<datestamp>1257850980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>the option is either merge with Oracle or go bankrupt</i></p><p>If Sun goes into reorganization or liquidation assets like MySQL would probably be sold off and Oracle would likely be blocked as a buyer of MySQL, so the EC's main objection would be resolved in an acceptable fashion either way. The purpose of government in a competitive free market should be exactly that; prevent anticompetitive behaviour and structures, not support failing companies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the option is either merge with Oracle or go bankruptIf Sun goes into reorganization or liquidation assets like MySQL would probably be sold off and Oracle would likely be blocked as a buyer of MySQL , so the EC 's main objection would be resolved in an acceptable fashion either way .
The purpose of government in a competitive free market should be exactly that ; prevent anticompetitive behaviour and structures , not support failing companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the option is either merge with Oracle or go bankruptIf Sun goes into reorganization or liquidation assets like MySQL would probably be sold off and Oracle would likely be blocked as a buyer of MySQL, so the EC's main objection would be resolved in an acceptable fashion either way.
The purpose of government in a competitive free market should be exactly that; prevent anticompetitive behaviour and structures, not support failing companies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052570</id>
	<title>Re:Why does Oracle need MySQL anyway?</title>
	<author>idontgno</author>
	<datestamp>1257852180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Car analogy warning!</p><p>The same reason that GM made and sold compacts and even when they wanted everyone to buy uber SUVs: if you won't buy the soccer-mom-battleship, maybe you'll buy their smaller vehicle.</p><p>Even Oracle (in its dark, festering, inner heart-of-hearts) realizes that not every DBMS installation needs Oracle 13qq UnrealMegaApplicationHyperClustering (tm). MySQL is the foot in the door. If you'll buy the GM compact car now, it's more likely you'll buy the GM RoadWhale later when you become a fat exurban bourgeois poseur (like me). It's the American Way(tm)!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Car analogy warning ! The same reason that GM made and sold compacts and even when they wanted everyone to buy uber SUVs : if you wo n't buy the soccer-mom-battleship , maybe you 'll buy their smaller vehicle.Even Oracle ( in its dark , festering , inner heart-of-hearts ) realizes that not every DBMS installation needs Oracle 13qq UnrealMegaApplicationHyperClustering ( tm ) .
MySQL is the foot in the door .
If you 'll buy the GM compact car now , it 's more likely you 'll buy the GM RoadWhale later when you become a fat exurban bourgeois poseur ( like me ) .
It 's the American Way ( tm ) !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Car analogy warning!The same reason that GM made and sold compacts and even when they wanted everyone to buy uber SUVs: if you won't buy the soccer-mom-battleship, maybe you'll buy their smaller vehicle.Even Oracle (in its dark, festering, inner heart-of-hearts) realizes that not every DBMS installation needs Oracle 13qq UnrealMegaApplicationHyperClustering (tm).
MySQL is the foot in the door.
If you'll buy the GM compact car now, it's more likely you'll buy the GM RoadWhale later when you become a fat exurban bourgeois poseur (like me).
It's the American Way(tm)!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30067882</id>
	<title>Yeah, sure. In which planet do you live?</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1257082020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That day the EU confiscates  all of Oracle's assets in Europe, mandates that their copyrights are no longer valid, puts in trial as many Oracle's executives as possible,  starts a massive migration from all kind of companies, even US based ones but with EU interests, to something else.</p><p>Yeah, if we are going to portray stupid scenarios I can also get carried away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That day the EU confiscates all of Oracle 's assets in Europe , mandates that their copyrights are no longer valid , puts in trial as many Oracle 's executives as possible , starts a massive migration from all kind of companies , even US based ones but with EU interests , to something else.Yeah , if we are going to portray stupid scenarios I can also get carried away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That day the EU confiscates  all of Oracle's assets in Europe, mandates that their copyrights are no longer valid, puts in trial as many Oracle's executives as possible,  starts a massive migration from all kind of companies, even US based ones but with EU interests, to something else.Yeah, if we are going to portray stupid scenarios I can also get carried away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30053378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051824</id>
	<title>What is the EC??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257849180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The European Commission (formally the Commission of the European Communities) acts as an executive of the European Union. The body is responsible for proposing legislation, implementing decisions, upholding the Union's treaties and the general day-to-day running of the Union.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The European Commission ( formally the Commission of the European Communities ) acts as an executive of the European Union .
The body is responsible for proposing legislation , implementing decisions , upholding the Union 's treaties and the general day-to-day running of the Union .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The European Commission (formally the Commission of the European Communities) acts as an executive of the European Union.
The body is responsible for proposing legislation, implementing decisions, upholding the Union's treaties and the general day-to-day running of the Union.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30055416</id>
	<title>MySQL is open source...</title>
	<author>Luke has no name</author>
	<datestamp>1257868380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://lwn.net/Articles/329626/" title="lwn.net" rel="nofollow">and forkable.</a> [lwn.net]</p><p>MySQL will be Sun's Oracle's property in name only.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and forkable .
[ lwn.net ] MySQL will be Sun 's Oracle 's property in name only .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and forkable.
[lwn.net]MySQL will be Sun's Oracle's property in name only.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30057610</id>
	<title>Re:Is company health considered?</title>
	<author>diablovision</author>
	<datestamp>1257068640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm unclear on what part of the government would be "supporting" a failing company by allowing a private acquisition to occur. It's not like Oracle is asking the government to <i>pump money into</i> Sun. That would be <i>supporting</i>.</p><p>On the other hand, it's seems relatively obvious that by preventing this the EC is doing everything possible to make Sun and Oracle <i>both</i> less competitive. Whose being anti-competitive again? Do you think that maybe IBM, SAP, HP, and others are actually <i>benefitting</i> from the gridlock? They've been soaking up Sun customers for months now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm unclear on what part of the government would be " supporting " a failing company by allowing a private acquisition to occur .
It 's not like Oracle is asking the government to pump money into Sun .
That would be supporting.On the other hand , it 's seems relatively obvious that by preventing this the EC is doing everything possible to make Sun and Oracle both less competitive .
Whose being anti-competitive again ?
Do you think that maybe IBM , SAP , HP , and others are actually benefitting from the gridlock ?
They 've been soaking up Sun customers for months now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm unclear on what part of the government would be "supporting" a failing company by allowing a private acquisition to occur.
It's not like Oracle is asking the government to pump money into Sun.
That would be supporting.On the other hand, it's seems relatively obvious that by preventing this the EC is doing everything possible to make Sun and Oracle both less competitive.
Whose being anti-competitive again?
Do you think that maybe IBM, SAP, HP, and others are actually benefitting from the gridlock?
They've been soaking up Sun customers for months now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051880</id>
	<title>Re:Okay...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257849360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The EC is.. who now?</p></div><p>EC is European Commission

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European\_Commission" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European\_Commission</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The EC is.. who now ? EC is European Commission http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European \ _Commission [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The EC is.. who now?EC is European Commission

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European\_Commission [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30056876</id>
	<title>Jobs</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1257880860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One more thing EC should consider is whether the deal will <i>create</i> more jobs or not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One more thing EC should consider is whether the deal will create more jobs or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One more thing EC should consider is whether the deal will create more jobs or not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30053906</id>
	<title>fucking eurofags</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257859380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>always shitting in everyones tea..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>always shitting in everyones tea. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>always shitting in everyones tea..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052566</id>
	<title>A Rep?</title>
	<author>theillien</author>
	<datestamp>1257852120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>According to the article the last time the EU/EC contravened a takeover was when they denied General Electric's takeover of Honeywell in 2001. I'd hardly call two denials in a decade a reputation for disagreeing with the US on these matters.</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the article the last time the EU/EC contravened a takeover was when they denied General Electric 's takeover of Honeywell in 2001 .
I 'd hardly call two denials in a decade a reputation for disagreeing with the US on these matters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the article the last time the EU/EC contravened a takeover was when they denied General Electric's takeover of Honeywell in 2001.
I'd hardly call two denials in a decade a reputation for disagreeing with the US on these matters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052018</id>
	<title>Is company health considered?</title>
	<author>wandazulu</author>
	<datestamp>1257849900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As I remember it (and I could be remembering it wrong), Sirrus and XM were allowed to merge because the likelihood of both companies continuing without a merger were essentially nil.</p><p>Would the EU perform a similar analysis on Sun and figure that, given its situation, the option is either merge with Oracle or go bankrupt, in which case the situation is, conceptually, the same because either way Sun ceases to be a player. Or do they not consider this and simply line up the bullet points, see too much overlap, say no to the merger (which is not the same as an objection, I realize), and just hope that Sun can pull it together by itself?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I remember it ( and I could be remembering it wrong ) , Sirrus and XM were allowed to merge because the likelihood of both companies continuing without a merger were essentially nil.Would the EU perform a similar analysis on Sun and figure that , given its situation , the option is either merge with Oracle or go bankrupt , in which case the situation is , conceptually , the same because either way Sun ceases to be a player .
Or do they not consider this and simply line up the bullet points , see too much overlap , say no to the merger ( which is not the same as an objection , I realize ) , and just hope that Sun can pull it together by itself ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I remember it (and I could be remembering it wrong), Sirrus and XM were allowed to merge because the likelihood of both companies continuing without a merger were essentially nil.Would the EU perform a similar analysis on Sun and figure that, given its situation, the option is either merge with Oracle or go bankrupt, in which case the situation is, conceptually, the same because either way Sun ceases to be a player.
Or do they not consider this and simply line up the bullet points, see too much overlap, say no to the merger (which is not the same as an objection, I realize), and just hope that Sun can pull it together by itself?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052556</id>
	<title>Re:Why does Oracle need MySQL anyway?</title>
	<author>Korin43</author>
	<datestamp>1257852120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The best part of all this is that if it doesn't go through, Oracle could just buy all of Sun except for MySQL, leaving it to die..</htmltext>
<tokenext>The best part of all this is that if it does n't go through , Oracle could just buy all of Sun except for MySQL , leaving it to die. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best part of all this is that if it doesn't go through, Oracle could just buy all of Sun except for MySQL, leaving it to die..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30053880</id>
	<title>Re:Why does Oracle need MySQL anyway?</title>
	<author>jedwidz</author>
	<datestamp>1257859260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll wager this isn't going to happen. An Oracle-branded MySQL would be a baffling addition to their product line-up.</p><p>This wouldn't get past the marketing guys - MySQL is pretty much everything that Oracle proudly isn't.</p><p>Maybe the plan is to reassign the MySQL talent to work on the Oracle database.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll wager this is n't going to happen .
An Oracle-branded MySQL would be a baffling addition to their product line-up.This would n't get past the marketing guys - MySQL is pretty much everything that Oracle proudly is n't.Maybe the plan is to reassign the MySQL talent to work on the Oracle database .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll wager this isn't going to happen.
An Oracle-branded MySQL would be a baffling addition to their product line-up.This wouldn't get past the marketing guys - MySQL is pretty much everything that Oracle proudly isn't.Maybe the plan is to reassign the MySQL talent to work on the Oracle database.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30055802</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257870900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is NOT a technical issue.</p><p>Why is it difficult for American companies to understand that Europe is a different political grouping and market from the USA and has its own laws and culture.  It is not subject to American laws and has its own laws.</p><p>If US companies wish to play in the European market they have to follow European laws!.</p><p>Why did not Microsoft, Intel and now Oracle understand that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is NOT a technical issue.Why is it difficult for American companies to understand that Europe is a different political grouping and market from the USA and has its own laws and culture .
It is not subject to American laws and has its own laws.If US companies wish to play in the European market they have to follow European laws ! .Why did not Microsoft , Intel and now Oracle understand that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is NOT a technical issue.Why is it difficult for American companies to understand that Europe is a different political grouping and market from the USA and has its own laws and culture.
It is not subject to American laws and has its own laws.If US companies wish to play in the European market they have to follow European laws!.Why did not Microsoft, Intel and now Oracle understand that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30056024</id>
	<title>Re:Good Business</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257872580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd like to remind you that they did NOT prevent IBM from buying Sun. IBM (or anyone else, including you or me) could have bought Sun for a price of $9.5 per share. They chose not to buy it at that price.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to remind you that they did NOT prevent IBM from buying Sun .
IBM ( or anyone else , including you or me ) could have bought Sun for a price of $ 9.5 per share .
They chose not to buy it at that price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to remind you that they did NOT prevent IBM from buying Sun.
IBM (or anyone else, including you or me) could have bought Sun for a price of $9.5 per share.
They chose not to buy it at that price.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052264</id>
	<title>The commision is right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257850980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Two shit database applications combined will give us the most shitty database in the world.</p><p>Ps. you suck Larry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Two shit database applications combined will give us the most shitty database in the world.Ps .
you suck Larry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two shit database applications combined will give us the most shitty database in the world.Ps.
you suck Larry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30053502</id>
	<title>Re:Good Business</title>
	<author>int69h</author>
	<datestamp>1257856980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://blogs.sun.com/BestPerf/entry/tpc\_c\_world\_record\_sun" title="sun.com">http://blogs.sun.com/BestPerf/entry/tpc\_c\_world\_record\_sun</a> [sun.com]</p><p>That non-competitive SPARC stuff recently trounced IBM and HP in performance/dollar, performance/watt and performance/rack.  I'd hate to see what you define as competitive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //blogs.sun.com/BestPerf/entry/tpc \ _c \ _world \ _record \ _sun [ sun.com ] That non-competitive SPARC stuff recently trounced IBM and HP in performance/dollar , performance/watt and performance/rack .
I 'd hate to see what you define as competitive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://blogs.sun.com/BestPerf/entry/tpc\_c\_world\_record\_sun [sun.com]That non-competitive SPARC stuff recently trounced IBM and HP in performance/dollar, performance/watt and performance/rack.
I'd hate to see what you define as competitive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30053210</id>
	<title>Re:Is company health considered?</title>
	<author>Dan667</author>
	<datestamp>1257855420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mysql did very well on it's own, Sun on the other hand is a train wreck.  Simple answer is to spin off Mysql.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mysql did very well on it 's own , Sun on the other hand is a train wreck .
Simple answer is to spin off Mysql .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mysql did very well on it's own, Sun on the other hand is a train wreck.
Simple answer is to spin off Mysql.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051958</id>
	<title>I disagree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257849660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oracle is marketed as an high-end database product/set of services. MySql is a low-end one (and please, don't misinterpret this as shot against it). Now, I'm not saying that you won't find companies replacing their Oracle database with a MySql one, but those are very few and far between. Between Oracle and MySql, there are actually quite of slew of decent alternatives (both proprietary and open source).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oracle is marketed as an high-end database product/set of services .
MySql is a low-end one ( and please , do n't misinterpret this as shot against it ) .
Now , I 'm not saying that you wo n't find companies replacing their Oracle database with a MySql one , but those are very few and far between .
Between Oracle and MySql , there are actually quite of slew of decent alternatives ( both proprietary and open source ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oracle is marketed as an high-end database product/set of services.
MySql is a low-end one (and please, don't misinterpret this as shot against it).
Now, I'm not saying that you won't find companies replacing their Oracle database with a MySql one, but those are very few and far between.
Between Oracle and MySql, there are actually quite of slew of decent alternatives (both proprietary and open source).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052312</id>
	<title>Re:F the EC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257851100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, right. Oracle is letting one of it's largest markets fall just so they don't have to sell MySQL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , right .
Oracle is letting one of it 's largest markets fall just so they do n't have to sell MySQL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, right.
Oracle is letting one of it's largest markets fall just so they don't have to sell MySQL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052358</id>
	<title>Re:F the EC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257851340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They can and will fine them, just like they fined Microsoft and Intel. You don't pay? Get fined again. Still don't want to pay? Do your business elsewhere and say bye bye to the biggest market in the world.<br>If you want to make business within the EU abide you will have to abide to the rules.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They can and will fine them , just like they fined Microsoft and Intel .
You do n't pay ?
Get fined again .
Still do n't want to pay ?
Do your business elsewhere and say bye bye to the biggest market in the world.If you want to make business within the EU abide you will have to abide to the rules .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can and will fine them, just like they fined Microsoft and Intel.
You don't pay?
Get fined again.
Still don't want to pay?
Do your business elsewhere and say bye bye to the biggest market in the world.If you want to make business within the EU abide you will have to abide to the rules.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30053268</id>
	<title>Re:Mod parent up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257855780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ya'know, I'd spell it out for you, but I think I'll just let it stand. Wouldn't wanna ruin it for the rest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ya'know , I 'd spell it out for you , but I think I 'll just let it stand .
Would n't wan na ruin it for the rest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ya'know, I'd spell it out for you, but I think I'll just let it stand.
Wouldn't wanna ruin it for the rest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052448</id>
	<title>Re:F the EC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257851640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How would you explain to shareholders that company you manage just lost half its revenue (because your american pride got hurt)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How would you explain to shareholders that company you manage just lost half its revenue ( because your american pride got hurt ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How would you explain to shareholders that company you manage just lost half its revenue (because your american pride got hurt)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30056026</id>
	<title>Re:I Object!</title>
	<author>rubi</author>
	<datestamp>1257872640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can you just imagine the licensing costs for solar light? What about if youwant to generate power fromsolar panels or similar?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you just imagine the licensing costs for solar light ?
What about if youwant to generate power fromsolar panels or similar ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you just imagine the licensing costs for solar light?
What about if youwant to generate power fromsolar panels or similar?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30053650</id>
	<title>Re:Is company health considered?</title>
	<author>AlXtreme</author>
	<datestamp>1257857880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>As an aside, when Sirius and XM originally got their satellite radio licenses<br>from the FCC, it included a requirement that the two companies never merge.<br>In America, the companies merged. In Europe, one of them would have been allowed to fail.</p></div></blockquote><p>Or they would have had to hand in one of their licenses, which sounds like the more logical solution.</p><p>There are other solutions than either merging or 'allowing to fail'. MySQL could be spun off as a separate business, or could be sold to another company.</p><p>Anti-competitive laws aren't written for the heck of it, there are cases where the market would be disrupted enough to warrant intervention. Wouldn't everyone here be crying bloody murder if Microsoft bought Mozilla corp?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As an aside , when Sirius and XM originally got their satellite radio licensesfrom the FCC , it included a requirement that the two companies never merge.In America , the companies merged .
In Europe , one of them would have been allowed to fail.Or they would have had to hand in one of their licenses , which sounds like the more logical solution.There are other solutions than either merging or 'allowing to fail' .
MySQL could be spun off as a separate business , or could be sold to another company.Anti-competitive laws are n't written for the heck of it , there are cases where the market would be disrupted enough to warrant intervention .
Would n't everyone here be crying bloody murder if Microsoft bought Mozilla corp ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an aside, when Sirius and XM originally got their satellite radio licensesfrom the FCC, it included a requirement that the two companies never merge.In America, the companies merged.
In Europe, one of them would have been allowed to fail.Or they would have had to hand in one of their licenses, which sounds like the more logical solution.There are other solutions than either merging or 'allowing to fail'.
MySQL could be spun off as a separate business, or could be sold to another company.Anti-competitive laws aren't written for the heck of it, there are cases where the market would be disrupted enough to warrant intervention.
Wouldn't everyone here be crying bloody murder if Microsoft bought Mozilla corp?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30053476</id>
	<title>Re:Why does Oracle need MySQL anyway?</title>
	<author>Nefarious Wheel</author>
	<datestamp>1257856860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just spin it off, keep a small interest that will prevent the spun-off unit from going rogue, and claim victory.</p></div><p>Does MySQL own the IP for a test suite that proves compatibility with the standard, such as Java does?  Just curious here, don't really know.</p><p>On the other hand, Open or not, there are ways you can capitalise on IP by diminishing its impact in the market.  Gentle, persistent, overtly benign yet pernicious change will do it. The principle of "extend, embrace, extinguish" isn't just limited to one monopoly. </p><p>And here I worry about Jim Fisk's ghost buying up the equivalent of today's Red Car line (ref: Chinatown, Fisk Tires, Firestone Tires, Roger Rabbit, California Freeways, Red Car" -- ahh bugger it, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red\_Car" title="wikipedia.org">here's a link</a> [wikipedia.org]).  If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em.  Then buy a backhoe.  Golden rule again - guy with the gold makes the rules.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just spin it off , keep a small interest that will prevent the spun-off unit from going rogue , and claim victory.Does MySQL own the IP for a test suite that proves compatibility with the standard , such as Java does ?
Just curious here , do n't really know.On the other hand , Open or not , there are ways you can capitalise on IP by diminishing its impact in the market .
Gentle , persistent , overtly benign yet pernicious change will do it .
The principle of " extend , embrace , extinguish " is n't just limited to one monopoly .
And here I worry about Jim Fisk 's ghost buying up the equivalent of today 's Red Car line ( ref : Chinatown , Fisk Tires , Firestone Tires , Roger Rabbit , California Freeways , Red Car " -- ahh bugger it , here 's a link [ wikipedia.org ] ) .
If you ca n't beat 'em , buy 'em .
Then buy a backhoe .
Golden rule again - guy with the gold makes the rules .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just spin it off, keep a small interest that will prevent the spun-off unit from going rogue, and claim victory.Does MySQL own the IP for a test suite that proves compatibility with the standard, such as Java does?
Just curious here, don't really know.On the other hand, Open or not, there are ways you can capitalise on IP by diminishing its impact in the market.
Gentle, persistent, overtly benign yet pernicious change will do it.
The principle of "extend, embrace, extinguish" isn't just limited to one monopoly.
And here I worry about Jim Fisk's ghost buying up the equivalent of today's Red Car line (ref: Chinatown, Fisk Tires, Firestone Tires, Roger Rabbit, California Freeways, Red Car" -- ahh bugger it, here's a link [wikipedia.org]).
If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em.
Then buy a backhoe.
Golden rule again - guy with the gold makes the rules.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052614</id>
	<title>Re:F the EC</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1257852300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are they really "American companies"? They both have their headquarters in the U.S., but operations quite distributed. What proportion of each company's employees are based in the United States? I've actually been looking for that information and can't find it, so not a rhetorical question.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are they really " American companies " ?
They both have their headquarters in the U.S. , but operations quite distributed .
What proportion of each company 's employees are based in the United States ?
I 've actually been looking for that information and ca n't find it , so not a rhetorical question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are they really "American companies"?
They both have their headquarters in the U.S., but operations quite distributed.
What proportion of each company's employees are based in the United States?
I've actually been looking for that information and can't find it, so not a rhetorical question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052578</id>
	<title>Re:Is company health considered?</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1257852180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As I remember it (and I could be remembering it wrong), Sirrus and XM were allowed to merge because the likelihood of both companies continuing without a merger were essentially nil.</p><p>Would the EU perform a similar analysis on Sun and figure that, given its situation, the option is either merge with Oracle or go bankrupt...</p></div><p>First of all, Sirius/XM (AFAIK) doesn't broadcast in Europe.</p><p>Second, the Europeans and the USA have differing philosophies when it comes to anti-trust regulation.<br>America's philosophy is to protect the competitive process &amp; competitors.<br>The Europeans' goal is to protect the competitive process &amp; consumer welfare.<br>So to directly respond to your question, the Europeans would perform the analysis and not have any qualms allowing Sun to fail.</p><p>As an aside, when Sirius and XM originally got their satellite radio licenses<br>from the FCC, it included a requirement that the two companies never merge.<br>In America, the companies merged. In Europe, one of them would have been allowed to fail.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As I remember it ( and I could be remembering it wrong ) , Sirrus and XM were allowed to merge because the likelihood of both companies continuing without a merger were essentially nil.Would the EU perform a similar analysis on Sun and figure that , given its situation , the option is either merge with Oracle or go bankrupt...First of all , Sirius/XM ( AFAIK ) does n't broadcast in Europe.Second , the Europeans and the USA have differing philosophies when it comes to anti-trust regulation.America 's philosophy is to protect the competitive process &amp; competitors.The Europeans ' goal is to protect the competitive process &amp; consumer welfare.So to directly respond to your question , the Europeans would perform the analysis and not have any qualms allowing Sun to fail.As an aside , when Sirius and XM originally got their satellite radio licensesfrom the FCC , it included a requirement that the two companies never merge.In America , the companies merged .
In Europe , one of them would have been allowed to fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I remember it (and I could be remembering it wrong), Sirrus and XM were allowed to merge because the likelihood of both companies continuing without a merger were essentially nil.Would the EU perform a similar analysis on Sun and figure that, given its situation, the option is either merge with Oracle or go bankrupt...First of all, Sirius/XM (AFAIK) doesn't broadcast in Europe.Second, the Europeans and the USA have differing philosophies when it comes to anti-trust regulation.America's philosophy is to protect the competitive process &amp; competitors.The Europeans' goal is to protect the competitive process &amp; consumer welfare.So to directly respond to your question, the Europeans would perform the analysis and not have any qualms allowing Sun to fail.As an aside, when Sirius and XM originally got their satellite radio licensesfrom the FCC, it included a requirement that the two companies never merge.In America, the companies merged.
In Europe, one of them would have been allowed to fail.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052748</id>
	<title>US bias, come on, it's getting tiresome</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1257852960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The EU and the EC are getting a rep for disagreeing with US counterparts.</p></div><p>Generally, in a disagreement there are two parties that disagree with each other. Unless one wants to implicitly express that one side is right and the other wrong, that's the way it should be phrased.</p><p>Quite frankly, given that US "guardians" of the markets have just been caught sleeping at the wheel when they let the financial crisis happen despite experts having warned of the problems for about a decade, it's not as if they had much reputation capital left, do they?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The EU and the EC are getting a rep for disagreeing with US counterparts.Generally , in a disagreement there are two parties that disagree with each other .
Unless one wants to implicitly express that one side is right and the other wrong , that 's the way it should be phrased.Quite frankly , given that US " guardians " of the markets have just been caught sleeping at the wheel when they let the financial crisis happen despite experts having warned of the problems for about a decade , it 's not as if they had much reputation capital left , do they ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The EU and the EC are getting a rep for disagreeing with US counterparts.Generally, in a disagreement there are two parties that disagree with each other.
Unless one wants to implicitly express that one side is right and the other wrong, that's the way it should be phrased.Quite frankly, given that US "guardians" of the markets have just been caught sleeping at the wheel when they let the financial crisis happen despite experts having warned of the problems for about a decade, it's not as if they had much reputation capital left, do they?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052784</id>
	<title>Re:Okay...</title>
	<author>stone2020</author>
	<datestamp>1257853200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eric Clapton</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eric Clapton</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eric Clapton</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051868</id>
	<title>Are getting a rep?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257849300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One instance is enough to give them a rep?</p><p>Whatever that is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One instance is enough to give them a rep ? Whatever that is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One instance is enough to give them a rep?Whatever that is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051930</id>
	<title>Oracle's reasons *are* monopolistic!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257849540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's see...MySQL brings in ~50M a year, Sun is losing 100M a month.  Makes no sense why Oracle would want to delay, except for monopolistic reasons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see...MySQL brings in ~ 50M a year , Sun is losing 100M a month .
Makes no sense why Oracle would want to delay , except for monopolistic reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see...MySQL brings in ~50M a year, Sun is losing 100M a month.
Makes no sense why Oracle would want to delay, except for monopolistic reasons.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30053046</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree</title>
	<author>geber22</author>
	<datestamp>1257854460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your post is completely incorrect and void of fact.  How would MySQL be low end?  Facebook, 250 million users on the Pinto of databases.  People have to stop spewing this blatantly false nonsense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your post is completely incorrect and void of fact .
How would MySQL be low end ?
Facebook , 250 million users on the Pinto of databases .
People have to stop spewing this blatantly false nonsense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your post is completely incorrect and void of fact.
How would MySQL be low end?
Facebook, 250 million users on the Pinto of databases.
People have to stop spewing this blatantly false nonsense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051858</id>
	<title>It's the EU now, you ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257849300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... insenitive clod.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... insenitive clod .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... insenitive clod.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051920</id>
	<title>Why does Oracle need MySQL anyway?</title>
	<author>rsborg</author>
	<datestamp>1257849480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just spin it off, keep a small interest that will prevent the spun-off unit from going rogue, and claim victory.
<p>
I seriously don't see why Oracle needs MySQL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just spin it off , keep a small interest that will prevent the spun-off unit from going rogue , and claim victory .
I seriously do n't see why Oracle needs MySQL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just spin it off, keep a small interest that will prevent the spun-off unit from going rogue, and claim victory.
I seriously don't see why Oracle needs MySQL.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30056896</id>
	<title>Re:F the EC</title>
	<author>rolfwind</author>
	<datestamp>1257881100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Not that I agree with this retarded group's findings. The whole "Can't sustain development without being able to sell proprietary licenses" is bunk. Plenty of opensource projects thrive without being able to sell proprietary licenses. Linux springs to mind.</p></div></blockquote><p>Let's get real - the EC and EU, while I don't agree with their bloated bureacracy MOST OF THE TIME, actually try to protect consumers sometimes.</p><p>This, opposed to USA regulatory bodies, which seems to have lost most of their bite and are owned (by proxy of politicians owned by interests) by the very corporations they seek to regulate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that I agree with this retarded group 's findings .
The whole " Ca n't sustain development without being able to sell proprietary licenses " is bunk .
Plenty of opensource projects thrive without being able to sell proprietary licenses .
Linux springs to mind.Let 's get real - the EC and EU , while I do n't agree with their bloated bureacracy MOST OF THE TIME , actually try to protect consumers sometimes.This , opposed to USA regulatory bodies , which seems to have lost most of their bite and are owned ( by proxy of politicians owned by interests ) by the very corporations they seek to regulate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that I agree with this retarded group's findings.
The whole "Can't sustain development without being able to sell proprietary licenses" is bunk.
Plenty of opensource projects thrive without being able to sell proprietary licenses.
Linux springs to mind.Let's get real - the EC and EU, while I don't agree with their bloated bureacracy MOST OF THE TIME, actually try to protect consumers sometimes.This, opposed to USA regulatory bodies, which seems to have lost most of their bite and are owned (by proxy of politicians owned by interests) by the very corporations they seek to regulate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052622</id>
	<title>Good Business</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257852360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oracle is pursuing a very good business model with the Sun aquisition.</p><p>1) Eliminate somebody else from buying them, like IBM.<br>2) Get all that neat Java stuff<br>3) Some hardware engineering but that SPARC stuff really isn't competitive.<br>4) Get MySQL and finally kill it by letting it wither.  MySQL is probably the biggest threat right now to Oracle's dominance in the database marketplace.   My controlling<br>it they can drive the software literally into the ground.</p><p>It was a $7B bargain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oracle is pursuing a very good business model with the Sun aquisition.1 ) Eliminate somebody else from buying them , like IBM.2 ) Get all that neat Java stuff3 ) Some hardware engineering but that SPARC stuff really is n't competitive.4 ) Get MySQL and finally kill it by letting it wither .
MySQL is probably the biggest threat right now to Oracle 's dominance in the database marketplace .
My controllingit they can drive the software literally into the ground.It was a $ 7B bargain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oracle is pursuing a very good business model with the Sun aquisition.1) Eliminate somebody else from buying them, like IBM.2) Get all that neat Java stuff3) Some hardware engineering but that SPARC stuff really isn't competitive.4) Get MySQL and finally kill it by letting it wither.
MySQL is probably the biggest threat right now to Oracle's dominance in the database marketplace.
My controllingit they can drive the software literally into the ground.It was a $7B bargain.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30054024</id>
	<title>Re:Why let the EU interfere?</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1257860100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although these companies are primarily based in the US they have some fairly substantial operations in the EU.  I don't imagine that they like the idea of moving those, especially if it involves moving them further from a market that they're trying to sell into.  Europe probably would miss Oracle and MySQL but Oracle-Sun would probably miss having a presence in an enormous market and would not welcome the costs of moving parts of their operation into the US or to other places outside the EU.</p><p>When they entered the European markets, these companies did so on the understanding that they'd be required to obey European laws.  Therefore I don't believe there's anything to criticize that they are now being held up by these laws - they put themselves in the reach of EU jurisdiction in order to profit in the large markets of the Europe Union, now they're living with the consequences.  Objecting to the EU's actual reasoning is fair enough but it's not really reasonable to expect that because a company is based in the US it will not encounter different legal situations when it runs significant businesses in other parts of the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although these companies are primarily based in the US they have some fairly substantial operations in the EU .
I do n't imagine that they like the idea of moving those , especially if it involves moving them further from a market that they 're trying to sell into .
Europe probably would miss Oracle and MySQL but Oracle-Sun would probably miss having a presence in an enormous market and would not welcome the costs of moving parts of their operation into the US or to other places outside the EU.When they entered the European markets , these companies did so on the understanding that they 'd be required to obey European laws .
Therefore I do n't believe there 's anything to criticize that they are now being held up by these laws - they put themselves in the reach of EU jurisdiction in order to profit in the large markets of the Europe Union , now they 're living with the consequences .
Objecting to the EU 's actual reasoning is fair enough but it 's not really reasonable to expect that because a company is based in the US it will not encounter different legal situations when it runs significant businesses in other parts of the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although these companies are primarily based in the US they have some fairly substantial operations in the EU.
I don't imagine that they like the idea of moving those, especially if it involves moving them further from a market that they're trying to sell into.
Europe probably would miss Oracle and MySQL but Oracle-Sun would probably miss having a presence in an enormous market and would not welcome the costs of moving parts of their operation into the US or to other places outside the EU.When they entered the European markets, these companies did so on the understanding that they'd be required to obey European laws.
Therefore I don't believe there's anything to criticize that they are now being held up by these laws - they put themselves in the reach of EU jurisdiction in order to profit in the large markets of the Europe Union, now they're living with the consequences.
Objecting to the EU's actual reasoning is fair enough but it's not really reasonable to expect that because a company is based in the US it will not encounter different legal situations when it runs significant businesses in other parts of the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30053378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30053438</id>
	<title>Re:Okay...</title>
	<author>Dogtanian</author>
	<datestamp>1257856680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EC [wikipedia.org]

Effectively, it's the EU.</p></div><p>You linked to the European Commission page (which is what the article means).<br> <br>
FWIW, I (a European) misinterpreted it as meaning "European Community"- albeit assuming that Slashdot was using it slightly inaccurately as an anachronistic synonym for the EU. Mainly because that was its primary meaning in day-to-day usage around 15+ years ago.<br> <br>
(The EC was effectively the predecessor to the EU, as it was the largest and most important organisation that went up to create the latter. Much like the EC was in turn the original EEC (European Economic Community) and some other stuff, I guess.<br> <br>
I'd say that most people view EEC -&gt; EC -&gt; EU as changing names for the same "European" project, albeit with a significant expansion in powers over the years. Which though slightly oversimplified, isn't too far off the mark AFAICT.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EC [ wikipedia.org ] Effectively , it 's the EU.You linked to the European Commission page ( which is what the article means ) .
FWIW , I ( a European ) misinterpreted it as meaning " European Community " - albeit assuming that Slashdot was using it slightly inaccurately as an anachronistic synonym for the EU .
Mainly because that was its primary meaning in day-to-day usage around 15 + years ago .
( The EC was effectively the predecessor to the EU , as it was the largest and most important organisation that went up to create the latter .
Much like the EC was in turn the original EEC ( European Economic Community ) and some other stuff , I guess .
I 'd say that most people view EEC - &gt; EC - &gt; EU as changing names for the same " European " project , albeit with a significant expansion in powers over the years .
Which though slightly oversimplified , is n't too far off the mark AFAICT .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EC [wikipedia.org]

Effectively, it's the EU.You linked to the European Commission page (which is what the article means).
FWIW, I (a European) misinterpreted it as meaning "European Community"- albeit assuming that Slashdot was using it slightly inaccurately as an anachronistic synonym for the EU.
Mainly because that was its primary meaning in day-to-day usage around 15+ years ago.
(The EC was effectively the predecessor to the EU, as it was the largest and most important organisation that went up to create the latter.
Much like the EC was in turn the original EEC (European Economic Community) and some other stuff, I guess.
I'd say that most people view EEC -&gt; EC -&gt; EU as changing names for the same "European" project, albeit with a significant expansion in powers over the years.
Which though slightly oversimplified, isn't too far off the mark AFAICT.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30054128</id>
	<title>EU, EU, quite contrary!</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1257860520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The EU is a very large market but it's also a very different market to the US.  The customers are different, governments and regulators have different mindsets.  The regulators for this very different place with different economies, different customers and different politics to those of the US states have come to a different decision to the US regulators?  How very contrary of them!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The EU is a very large market but it 's also a very different market to the US .
The customers are different , governments and regulators have different mindsets .
The regulators for this very different place with different economies , different customers and different politics to those of the US states have come to a different decision to the US regulators ?
How very contrary of them !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The EU is a very large market but it's also a very different market to the US.
The customers are different, governments and regulators have different mindsets.
The regulators for this very different place with different economies, different customers and different politics to those of the US states have come to a different decision to the US regulators?
How very contrary of them!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30067524</id>
	<title>Re:I Object!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257079740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Help me out here. How does the EC/EU/E have any say in one American company buying another one? Yes, I understand they don't like it, and it may reduce competition, and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... ad nauseum. What I have to wonder is how the U.S. Justice Department has legitimately signed off on it? The EU/EC should have no say in the deal at all!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Help me out here .
How does the EC/EU/E have any say in one American company buying another one ?
Yes , I understand they do n't like it , and it may reduce competition , and ... ad nauseum .
What I have to wonder is how the U.S. Justice Department has legitimately signed off on it ?
The EU/EC should have no say in the deal at all !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Help me out here.
How does the EC/EU/E have any say in one American company buying another one?
Yes, I understand they don't like it, and it may reduce competition, and ... ad nauseum.
What I have to wonder is how the U.S. Justice Department has legitimately signed off on it?
The EU/EC should have no say in the deal at all!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30058498</id>
	<title>Re:Okay...</title>
	<author>daem0n1x</author>
	<datestamp>1257079380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How was this shit modded funny?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How was this shit modded funny ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How was this shit modded funny?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052642</id>
	<title>ah, killing MySQL like Digital's rdb...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257852480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...when VAX were great in the '80s. Lovely multi-language integration features too. But Oracle let it stagnate so they could sell Oracle's own rdbms on VMS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...when VAX were great in the '80s .
Lovely multi-language integration features too .
But Oracle let it stagnate so they could sell Oracle 's own rdbms on VMS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...when VAX were great in the '80s.
Lovely multi-language integration features too.
But Oracle let it stagnate so they could sell Oracle's own rdbms on VMS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052248</id>
	<title>Not sure I get the EC ruling</title>
	<author>rcolbert</author>
	<datestamp>1257850860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is somewhat like preventing Mercedes-Benz from buying Kia in order to prevent a monopoly.  As well-stated earlier, Oracle doesn't compete against MySQL often if at all.  IBM and Microsoft appear to be the most legitimate competition Oracle has in their DBMS space, and MySQL wouldn't seem to impact the competitive balance all that much.  Having said that, who would want MySQL?  Cisco, HP, and EMC don't seem like good choices because they all have product families that each would hate to have to tie to a 'Runs Best with MySQL' campaign.  Red Hat makes sense from a certain point of view, but I'm not sure they want to diversify into the DBMS space.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is somewhat like preventing Mercedes-Benz from buying Kia in order to prevent a monopoly .
As well-stated earlier , Oracle does n't compete against MySQL often if at all .
IBM and Microsoft appear to be the most legitimate competition Oracle has in their DBMS space , and MySQL would n't seem to impact the competitive balance all that much .
Having said that , who would want MySQL ?
Cisco , HP , and EMC do n't seem like good choices because they all have product families that each would hate to have to tie to a 'Runs Best with MySQL ' campaign .
Red Hat makes sense from a certain point of view , but I 'm not sure they want to diversify into the DBMS space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is somewhat like preventing Mercedes-Benz from buying Kia in order to prevent a monopoly.
As well-stated earlier, Oracle doesn't compete against MySQL often if at all.
IBM and Microsoft appear to be the most legitimate competition Oracle has in their DBMS space, and MySQL wouldn't seem to impact the competitive balance all that much.
Having said that, who would want MySQL?
Cisco, HP, and EMC don't seem like good choices because they all have product families that each would hate to have to tie to a 'Runs Best with MySQL' campaign.
Red Hat makes sense from a certain point of view, but I'm not sure they want to diversify into the DBMS space.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052224</id>
	<title>Re:F the EC</title>
	<author>Zocalo</author>
	<datestamp>1257850800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You raise a very interesting point - other than the fact that both the companies concerned trade within the EU, this is within the EU's jurisdiction how, exactly?  Since this is about two US companies wanting to merge and the US DoJ is happy with the deal, does anyone actually know what the EC/EU actually <em>can</em> do about it?  For instance, can they block the deal outright, escalate the dispute to the WTO or some such to prolong matters, or what?  And if they can't prevent the deal going ahead, then can they place restrictions on the combined companies ability to trade within the EU without the US being able to go to the WTO?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You raise a very interesting point - other than the fact that both the companies concerned trade within the EU , this is within the EU 's jurisdiction how , exactly ?
Since this is about two US companies wanting to merge and the US DoJ is happy with the deal , does anyone actually know what the EC/EU actually can do about it ?
For instance , can they block the deal outright , escalate the dispute to the WTO or some such to prolong matters , or what ?
And if they ca n't prevent the deal going ahead , then can they place restrictions on the combined companies ability to trade within the EU without the US being able to go to the WTO ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You raise a very interesting point - other than the fact that both the companies concerned trade within the EU, this is within the EU's jurisdiction how, exactly?
Since this is about two US companies wanting to merge and the US DoJ is happy with the deal, does anyone actually know what the EC/EU actually can do about it?
For instance, can they block the deal outright, escalate the dispute to the WTO or some such to prolong matters, or what?
And if they can't prevent the deal going ahead, then can they place restrictions on the combined companies ability to trade within the EU without the US being able to go to the WTO?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052182</id>
	<title>Re:F the EC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257850680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If the EC complains it is so unfair, Oracle can suggest they either stop selling SUN hardware or Oracle software to the EU, and let those bueacratic bastards pick how they best wish to further retard the quality of their citizens lives.</p></div><p>Yeah, right. Because Europe is such a minor third world market<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br><a href="https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html" title="cia.gov" rel="nofollow">Ooops.</a> [cia.gov]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the EC complains it is so unfair , Oracle can suggest they either stop selling SUN hardware or Oracle software to the EU , and let those bueacratic bastards pick how they best wish to further retard the quality of their citizens lives.Yeah , right .
Because Europe is such a minor third world market ...Ooops .
[ cia.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the EC complains it is so unfair, Oracle can suggest they either stop selling SUN hardware or Oracle software to the EU, and let those bueacratic bastards pick how they best wish to further retard the quality of their citizens lives.Yeah, right.
Because Europe is such a minor third world market ...Ooops.
[cia.gov]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051966</id>
	<title>Mod parent up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257849660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mod parent up, I'm tired of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. eds assuming i know what every god damned acronym means. (Sure I can google it, but usually I just move on)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up , I 'm tired of the / .
eds assuming i know what every god damned acronym means .
( Sure I can google it , but usually I just move on )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up, I'm tired of the /.
eds assuming i know what every god damned acronym means.
(Sure I can google it, but usually I just move on)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052196</id>
	<title>Re:F the EC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257850680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they want to continue trading in the European Economic Area they will care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they want to continue trading in the European Economic Area they will care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they want to continue trading in the European Economic Area they will care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052172</id>
	<title>Since when did the Oracle move from Athens?!?!</title>
	<author>NoYob</author>
	<datestamp>1257850620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Mod parent up, I'm tired of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. eds assuming i know what every god damned acronym means. (Sure I can google it, but usually I just move on)</p></div><p>That's assuming you get right definition of "EC". Everyone here seems to assume that googling things will give you the correct or relevant answer.</p><p>For example, I googled it and E. Coli doesn't want Oracle in Athens to predict what Apollo will say.</p><p> So there!, "why don't you google it" Nazis!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up , I 'm tired of the / .
eds assuming i know what every god damned acronym means .
( Sure I can google it , but usually I just move on ) That 's assuming you get right definition of " EC " .
Everyone here seems to assume that googling things will give you the correct or relevant answer.For example , I googled it and E. Coli does n't want Oracle in Athens to predict what Apollo will say .
So there ! , " why do n't you google it " Nazis !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up, I'm tired of the /.
eds assuming i know what every god damned acronym means.
(Sure I can google it, but usually I just move on)That's assuming you get right definition of "EC".
Everyone here seems to assume that googling things will give you the correct or relevant answer.For example, I googled it and E. Coli doesn't want Oracle in Athens to predict what Apollo will say.
So there!, "why don't you google it" Nazis!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30053666</id>
	<title>Jurisdiction is a Nightmare</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1257858000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>          The US is being dragged into an unholy mess by treaties and agreements with foreign nations. Ever so steadily anything done in the US seems to also fall under foreign laws. And the US is partly to blame. After all insisting on controlling activities by groups such as Pirate Bay allows foreign nations the right to exert control over American actions.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; These issues will never resolve.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US is being dragged into an unholy mess by treaties and agreements with foreign nations .
Ever so steadily anything done in the US seems to also fall under foreign laws .
And the US is partly to blame .
After all insisting on controlling activities by groups such as Pirate Bay allows foreign nations the right to exert control over American actions .
                    These issues will never resolve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>          The US is being dragged into an unholy mess by treaties and agreements with foreign nations.
Ever so steadily anything done in the US seems to also fall under foreign laws.
And the US is partly to blame.
After all insisting on controlling activities by groups such as Pirate Bay allows foreign nations the right to exert control over American actions.
                    These issues will never resolve.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052762</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree</title>
	<author>Ukab the Great</author>
	<datestamp>1257853080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think Oracle's target market are the web 2.0 cowboys who originally went with MySQL, grew up and realized they needed something more robust, and are currently tied to MySQL because those other alternatives would break their extremely MySQL-specific code. If Oracle can provide a flawless backwards compatibility layer for MySQL, they'd have an edge over the other guys.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Oracle 's target market are the web 2.0 cowboys who originally went with MySQL , grew up and realized they needed something more robust , and are currently tied to MySQL because those other alternatives would break their extremely MySQL-specific code .
If Oracle can provide a flawless backwards compatibility layer for MySQL , they 'd have an edge over the other guys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Oracle's target market are the web 2.0 cowboys who originally went with MySQL, grew up and realized they needed something more robust, and are currently tied to MySQL because those other alternatives would break their extremely MySQL-specific code.
If Oracle can provide a flawless backwards compatibility layer for MySQL, they'd have an edge over the other guys.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30066986</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree</title>
	<author>pablodiazgutierrez</author>
	<datestamp>1257076320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see why they can't do that right now. In fact, it'd be in their best interest to attract those customers. The only explanation is that they're planning to offer not just a carrot, but a stick in the form of terminating the project.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see why they ca n't do that right now .
In fact , it 'd be in their best interest to attract those customers .
The only explanation is that they 're planning to offer not just a carrot , but a stick in the form of terminating the project .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see why they can't do that right now.
In fact, it'd be in their best interest to attract those customers.
The only explanation is that they're planning to offer not just a carrot, but a stick in the form of terminating the project.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051764</id>
	<title>I Object!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257848880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, I'd object to their purchasing the sun as well!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I 'd object to their purchasing the sun as well !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I'd object to their purchasing the sun as well!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052476</id>
	<title>Re:Why does Oracle need MySQL anyway?</title>
	<author>TheRealMindChild</author>
	<datestamp>1257851700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a marketing strategy. See, it seems most people when needing an so-easy-to-use-a-caveman-can-do-it DB server, they choose MySQL. Sometimes it is used in a small project that grows well beyond its britches. Since MySQL is more or less just a front end to a pluggable back end storage system, then those folks who find themselves with such a project can go from MySQL-&gt;MySQL with "dependable" Oracle backend-&gt;Oracle.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a marketing strategy .
See , it seems most people when needing an so-easy-to-use-a-caveman-can-do-it DB server , they choose MySQL .
Sometimes it is used in a small project that grows well beyond its britches .
Since MySQL is more or less just a front end to a pluggable back end storage system , then those folks who find themselves with such a project can go from MySQL- &gt; MySQL with " dependable " Oracle backend- &gt; Oracle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a marketing strategy.
See, it seems most people when needing an so-easy-to-use-a-caveman-can-do-it DB server, they choose MySQL.
Sometimes it is used in a small project that grows well beyond its britches.
Since MySQL is more or less just a front end to a pluggable back end storage system, then those folks who find themselves with such a project can go from MySQL-&gt;MySQL with "dependable" Oracle backend-&gt;Oracle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30058070</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257074520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are many companies that will use Oracle just because it's "the" db and other "real" dbs such as db2 cost the same harm and leg. Do you think every software project is managed by technophiles that know the tech landscape? Very often they don't care about the tech part, software is just a tool, and they rely on contractors that do not care a bit either as the Oracle license costs do not come out of their pocket and it's easier to use Oracle (that no one will object to) rather than sell something else no one in the clueless management ranks ever heard about (plus Oracle gets you nice dba commissions later). And the clueless management ranks will strongly repress any subordinate that shows he understands things more than them and threatens their authority position.</p><p>Oracle sellers never frowned on such deals and accepted gladly invoices for Oracles dbs their customers did not really need (sometimes those projects would have been happy with sqlite, let alone mysql)</p><p>Mysql is a big threat to this part of Oracle revenues because it managed to build a brand name clueless managers know about.</p><p>Which is also why letting Oracle get Mysql (as in the brand name) would be a mistake, even if the code stays free and others can use it. It would take years for any fork to build the same brand recognition as Mysql.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are many companies that will use Oracle just because it 's " the " db and other " real " dbs such as db2 cost the same harm and leg .
Do you think every software project is managed by technophiles that know the tech landscape ?
Very often they do n't care about the tech part , software is just a tool , and they rely on contractors that do not care a bit either as the Oracle license costs do not come out of their pocket and it 's easier to use Oracle ( that no one will object to ) rather than sell something else no one in the clueless management ranks ever heard about ( plus Oracle gets you nice dba commissions later ) .
And the clueless management ranks will strongly repress any subordinate that shows he understands things more than them and threatens their authority position.Oracle sellers never frowned on such deals and accepted gladly invoices for Oracles dbs their customers did not really need ( sometimes those projects would have been happy with sqlite , let alone mysql ) Mysql is a big threat to this part of Oracle revenues because it managed to build a brand name clueless managers know about.Which is also why letting Oracle get Mysql ( as in the brand name ) would be a mistake , even if the code stays free and others can use it .
It would take years for any fork to build the same brand recognition as Mysql .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are many companies that will use Oracle just because it's "the" db and other "real" dbs such as db2 cost the same harm and leg.
Do you think every software project is managed by technophiles that know the tech landscape?
Very often they don't care about the tech part, software is just a tool, and they rely on contractors that do not care a bit either as the Oracle license costs do not come out of their pocket and it's easier to use Oracle (that no one will object to) rather than sell something else no one in the clueless management ranks ever heard about (plus Oracle gets you nice dba commissions later).
And the clueless management ranks will strongly repress any subordinate that shows he understands things more than them and threatens their authority position.Oracle sellers never frowned on such deals and accepted gladly invoices for Oracles dbs their customers did not really need (sometimes those projects would have been happy with sqlite, let alone mysql)Mysql is a big threat to this part of Oracle revenues because it managed to build a brand name clueless managers know about.Which is also why letting Oracle get Mysql (as in the brand name) would be a mistake, even if the code stays free and others can use it.
It would take years for any fork to build the same brand recognition as Mysql.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052444</id>
	<title>And Europe can let get in their say....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257851640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IBM may be doing what they can to stir the pot on this.  With each delay, Sun's survival is more in question, and more business can be sucked away from Sun by IBM.</p><p>The objection (that Oracle will have "control" of an Open Source product like MySQL) is absolutely absurd.  First of all, there is nothing Oracle can do to prevent others from continuing to update and support MySQL under GPL.  Many Open Source projects continue under GPL.  MySQL has a huge "out of Oracle's reach" GPL effort already.</p><p>Secondly, the database market is dynamic with many new competitors entering the field.  MySQL as a relational database faces competition from a host of nonSQL databases whose performance and capacity relational databases cannot match.</p><p>The real problem with the merger is politics for profit and spite.  Heaven forbid the EU allows two American companies to merge.  The EU likes to keep their own mergers to a minimum<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... like with Airbus?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IBM may be doing what they can to stir the pot on this .
With each delay , Sun 's survival is more in question , and more business can be sucked away from Sun by IBM.The objection ( that Oracle will have " control " of an Open Source product like MySQL ) is absolutely absurd .
First of all , there is nothing Oracle can do to prevent others from continuing to update and support MySQL under GPL .
Many Open Source projects continue under GPL .
MySQL has a huge " out of Oracle 's reach " GPL effort already.Secondly , the database market is dynamic with many new competitors entering the field .
MySQL as a relational database faces competition from a host of nonSQL databases whose performance and capacity relational databases can not match.The real problem with the merger is politics for profit and spite .
Heaven forbid the EU allows two American companies to merge .
The EU likes to keep their own mergers to a minimum .... like with Airbus ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IBM may be doing what they can to stir the pot on this.
With each delay, Sun's survival is more in question, and more business can be sucked away from Sun by IBM.The objection (that Oracle will have "control" of an Open Source product like MySQL) is absolutely absurd.
First of all, there is nothing Oracle can do to prevent others from continuing to update and support MySQL under GPL.
Many Open Source projects continue under GPL.
MySQL has a huge "out of Oracle's reach" GPL effort already.Secondly, the database market is dynamic with many new competitors entering the field.
MySQL as a relational database faces competition from a host of nonSQL databases whose performance and capacity relational databases cannot match.The real problem with the merger is politics for profit and spite.
Heaven forbid the EU allows two American companies to merge.
The EU likes to keep their own mergers to a minimum .... like with Airbus?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30057040</id>
	<title>Re:F the EC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257882480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right.  A better fuck-you-cocksuckers to the EU would be to pull out all operations (read: jobs) from the EU for American companies hurt by this bullshit.  Sell the product there, maybe have the necessary sales offices and whatnot but it's ridiculously too expensive to do business in the EU anyway with this socialist bullshit.</p><p>Personally I'll be glad when the EU collapses under its own weight.  Couldn't happen to a bigger bunch of douches.  The funny thing is they riot at the drop of a hat, so the first time some member country can't cover the "dole" people will be burning down the cities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right .
A better fuck-you-cocksuckers to the EU would be to pull out all operations ( read : jobs ) from the EU for American companies hurt by this bullshit .
Sell the product there , maybe have the necessary sales offices and whatnot but it 's ridiculously too expensive to do business in the EU anyway with this socialist bullshit.Personally I 'll be glad when the EU collapses under its own weight .
Could n't happen to a bigger bunch of douches .
The funny thing is they riot at the drop of a hat , so the first time some member country ca n't cover the " dole " people will be burning down the cities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right.
A better fuck-you-cocksuckers to the EU would be to pull out all operations (read: jobs) from the EU for American companies hurt by this bullshit.
Sell the product there, maybe have the necessary sales offices and whatnot but it's ridiculously too expensive to do business in the EU anyway with this socialist bullshit.Personally I'll be glad when the EU collapses under its own weight.
Couldn't happen to a bigger bunch of douches.
The funny thing is they riot at the drop of a hat, so the first time some member country can't cover the "dole" people will be burning down the cities.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052952</id>
	<title>Re:Good Business</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257853980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"Some hardware engineering but that SPARC stuff really isn't competitive."</i></p><p>Really?</p><p>How much do you know about "that SPARC stuff?" It's true that x86 has finally surpassed a lot of the things that Sparc led the way in, but there are still ways that traditional Sparc scales better.</p><p>Now moving to the next generation of Sun's gear, we have hardware virtualisation and CoolThreads. Under a hundred grand will buy you a system with four 8-core CPUs, and <b>each core</b> can process eight simultaneous threads. That is OLTP nirvana! Too much power? Chop it up into a handful of smaller servers, each running their own OS. Any one of them can in turn be split into zones--soft OS partitions.</p><p>I keep hearing about how Sparc is obsolete, and yet the new generation of Sparc processors and supporting hardware is pushing the state of the art that Intel and AMD aren't even planning in yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Some hardware engineering but that SPARC stuff really is n't competitive .
" Really ? How much do you know about " that SPARC stuff ?
" It 's true that x86 has finally surpassed a lot of the things that Sparc led the way in , but there are still ways that traditional Sparc scales better.Now moving to the next generation of Sun 's gear , we have hardware virtualisation and CoolThreads .
Under a hundred grand will buy you a system with four 8-core CPUs , and each core can process eight simultaneous threads .
That is OLTP nirvana !
Too much power ?
Chop it up into a handful of smaller servers , each running their own OS .
Any one of them can in turn be split into zones--soft OS partitions.I keep hearing about how Sparc is obsolete , and yet the new generation of Sparc processors and supporting hardware is pushing the state of the art that Intel and AMD are n't even planning in yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Some hardware engineering but that SPARC stuff really isn't competitive.
"Really?How much do you know about "that SPARC stuff?
" It's true that x86 has finally surpassed a lot of the things that Sparc led the way in, but there are still ways that traditional Sparc scales better.Now moving to the next generation of Sun's gear, we have hardware virtualisation and CoolThreads.
Under a hundred grand will buy you a system with four 8-core CPUs, and each core can process eight simultaneous threads.
That is OLTP nirvana!
Too much power?
Chop it up into a handful of smaller servers, each running their own OS.
Any one of them can in turn be split into zones--soft OS partitions.I keep hearing about how Sparc is obsolete, and yet the new generation of Sparc processors and supporting hardware is pushing the state of the art that Intel and AMD aren't even planning in yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052650</id>
	<title>Re:I Object!</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1257852480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>God bless slashdot.  Anywhere else I would be feeling stupid and immature for reading that and thinking immediately of that joke.  On slashdot?  It's the first post.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>God bless slashdot .
Anywhere else I would be feeling stupid and immature for reading that and thinking immediately of that joke .
On slashdot ?
It 's the first post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God bless slashdot.
Anywhere else I would be feeling stupid and immature for reading that and thinking immediately of that joke.
On slashdot?
It's the first post.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30062032</id>
	<title>Re:And Europe can let get in their say....</title>
	<author>davecb</author>
	<datestamp>1257098400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The other known objector is Microsoft, who arguably should want to kill Sun (and Scott in particular), as well as any competitor to MS SQL.  Having Oracle more strongly supporting MySQL has got to be A
Bad Thing for them (;-))

</p><p>--dave</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The other known objector is Microsoft , who arguably should want to kill Sun ( and Scott in particular ) , as well as any competitor to MS SQL .
Having Oracle more strongly supporting MySQL has got to be A Bad Thing for them ( ; - ) ) --dave</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The other known objector is Microsoft, who arguably should want to kill Sun (and Scott in particular), as well as any competitor to MS SQL.
Having Oracle more strongly supporting MySQL has got to be A
Bad Thing for them (;-))

--dave</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30115046</id>
	<title>Re:fucking eurofags</title>
	<author>rubycodez</author>
	<datestamp>1258385880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>hush you, I know plenty of eurotrash, and hardly any of them are eurofags.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>hush you , I know plenty of eurotrash , and hardly any of them are eurofags .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hush you, I know plenty of eurotrash, and hardly any of them are eurofags.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30053906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052708</id>
	<title>Re:I Object!</title>
	<author>Thaelon</author>
	<datestamp>1257852720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sun, not Sol.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sun , not Sol .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sun, not Sol.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052064</id>
	<title>F the EC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257850140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>And Sun or Oracle should care why?
<br> <br>
They are American companies.  Soon to be an American company.
<br> <br>
Seriously, what can the EC do about it?  Do they have a problem when Chinese companies that are bought, sold, destroyed and created in China and happen to sell products/services to Europe?
<br> <br>
If the EC complains it is so unfair, Oracle can suggest they either stop selling SUN hardware or Oracle software to the EU, and let those bueacratic bastards pick how they best wish to further retard the quality of their citizens lives.
<br> <br>
Let's be completely honest, this is a shake down, pure and simple, my recommendation is Oracle not pay and push back, my bet is like all things of French influence the EC will cower and back down.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And Sun or Oracle should care why ?
They are American companies .
Soon to be an American company .
Seriously , what can the EC do about it ?
Do they have a problem when Chinese companies that are bought , sold , destroyed and created in China and happen to sell products/services to Europe ?
If the EC complains it is so unfair , Oracle can suggest they either stop selling SUN hardware or Oracle software to the EU , and let those bueacratic bastards pick how they best wish to further retard the quality of their citizens lives .
Let 's be completely honest , this is a shake down , pure and simple , my recommendation is Oracle not pay and push back , my bet is like all things of French influence the EC will cower and back down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And Sun or Oracle should care why?
They are American companies.
Soon to be an American company.
Seriously, what can the EC do about it?
Do they have a problem when Chinese companies that are bought, sold, destroyed and created in China and happen to sell products/services to Europe?
If the EC complains it is so unfair, Oracle can suggest they either stop selling SUN hardware or Oracle software to the EU, and let those bueacratic bastards pick how they best wish to further retard the quality of their citizens lives.
Let's be completely honest, this is a shake down, pure and simple, my recommendation is Oracle not pay and push back, my bet is like all things of French influence the EC will cower and back down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052864</id>
	<title>Re:F the EC</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1257853560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They are American companies. Soon to be an American company.</p></div><p>*yawn*</p><p>always the same old crap. Maybe I should write a reply-macro.</p><p>I'll make it short: The EU can kill them.<br>Europe is a <b>bigger</b> market than the US. It is also an important hub towards the near and middle east and eastern Europe, Russia, etc. for most american companies. Not being able to do business in the EU is a deathspell for most international corporations. Especially in the technology sector where the technology and competitors that will emerge in Europe to take your place can easily expand world-wide.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If the EC complains it is so unfair, Oracle can suggest they either stop selling SUN hardware or Oracle software to the EU, and let those bueacratic bastards pick how they best wish to further retard the quality of their citizens lives.</p> </div><p>Funny how no "american company" has ever actually tried that stunt. I wonder why? Are they all pussies or are you an idiot for believing that they wouldn't be hung from their own intestines by their shareholders if they triedD?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are American companies .
Soon to be an American company .
* yawn * always the same old crap .
Maybe I should write a reply-macro.I 'll make it short : The EU can kill them.Europe is a bigger market than the US .
It is also an important hub towards the near and middle east and eastern Europe , Russia , etc .
for most american companies .
Not being able to do business in the EU is a deathspell for most international corporations .
Especially in the technology sector where the technology and competitors that will emerge in Europe to take your place can easily expand world-wide.If the EC complains it is so unfair , Oracle can suggest they either stop selling SUN hardware or Oracle software to the EU , and let those bueacratic bastards pick how they best wish to further retard the quality of their citizens lives .
Funny how no " american company " has ever actually tried that stunt .
I wonder why ?
Are they all pussies or are you an idiot for believing that they would n't be hung from their own intestines by their shareholders if they triedD ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are American companies.
Soon to be an American company.
*yawn*always the same old crap.
Maybe I should write a reply-macro.I'll make it short: The EU can kill them.Europe is a bigger market than the US.
It is also an important hub towards the near and middle east and eastern Europe, Russia, etc.
for most american companies.
Not being able to do business in the EU is a deathspell for most international corporations.
Especially in the technology sector where the technology and competitors that will emerge in Europe to take your place can easily expand world-wide.If the EC complains it is so unfair, Oracle can suggest they either stop selling SUN hardware or Oracle software to the EU, and let those bueacratic bastards pick how they best wish to further retard the quality of their citizens lives.
Funny how no "american company" has ever actually tried that stunt.
I wonder why?
Are they all pussies or are you an idiot for believing that they wouldn't be hung from their own intestines by their shareholders if they triedD?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051998</id>
	<title>Re:Okay...</title>
	<author>Wowsers</author>
	<datestamp>1257849840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>EC = European Cretins</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>EC = European Cretins</tokentext>
<sentencetext>EC = European Cretins</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30058360</id>
	<title>Re:Why does Oracle need MySQL anyway?</title>
	<author>gtall</author>
	<datestamp>1257077820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TheRegister claims MySQL competes with Microsofts SQL thingy. I don't know if that's true but from 20,000 feet, that looks plausible. Plus, Oracle can use it as a feeder for their bigger database el Blobbo database.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TheRegister claims MySQL competes with Microsofts SQL thingy .
I do n't know if that 's true but from 20,000 feet , that looks plausible .
Plus , Oracle can use it as a feeder for their bigger database el Blobbo database .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TheRegister claims MySQL competes with Microsofts SQL thingy.
I don't know if that's true but from 20,000 feet, that looks plausible.
Plus, Oracle can use it as a feeder for their bigger database el Blobbo database.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30059924</id>
	<title>Re:And Europe can let get in their say....</title>
	<author>h8sg8s</author>
	<datestamp>1257089640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm betting that Larry ends up taking the passive-aggressive path in that he makes all the right noises, divests some part of MySQL and completes the deal with Sun.  Afterwards, he can do whatever he wants (he usually does in any case..) and his business plans are unaffected.  He has to allow Neelie Kroes (EU competitiveness czar) her pound of (childish and unfounded) flesh if he want's this deal done.  It's sad that this has devolved into a pissing match from what was a straight forward business deal.

The real losers are the Sun employees worldwide and those with scads of Sun-related experience on their resume's.  I guess this is how IBM gets their revenge for being cuckholded by Oracle.  Pity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm betting that Larry ends up taking the passive-aggressive path in that he makes all the right noises , divests some part of MySQL and completes the deal with Sun .
Afterwards , he can do whatever he wants ( he usually does in any case.. ) and his business plans are unaffected .
He has to allow Neelie Kroes ( EU competitiveness czar ) her pound of ( childish and unfounded ) flesh if he want 's this deal done .
It 's sad that this has devolved into a pissing match from what was a straight forward business deal .
The real losers are the Sun employees worldwide and those with scads of Sun-related experience on their resume 's .
I guess this is how IBM gets their revenge for being cuckholded by Oracle .
Pity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm betting that Larry ends up taking the passive-aggressive path in that he makes all the right noises, divests some part of MySQL and completes the deal with Sun.
Afterwards, he can do whatever he wants (he usually does in any case..) and his business plans are unaffected.
He has to allow Neelie Kroes (EU competitiveness czar) her pound of (childish and unfounded) flesh if he want's this deal done.
It's sad that this has devolved into a pissing match from what was a straight forward business deal.
The real losers are the Sun employees worldwide and those with scads of Sun-related experience on their resume's.
I guess this is how IBM gets their revenge for being cuckholded by Oracle.
Pity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052624</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257852360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>MySql is a low-end one (and please, don't misinterpret this as shot against it).</p></div> </blockquote><p>But MySQL <i>is</i> low end.  It's about as low end as you can go without using MS Access.</p><p>Is it a shot against it if what you're saying is true?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>MySql is a low-end one ( and please , do n't misinterpret this as shot against it ) .
But MySQL is low end .
It 's about as low end as you can go without using MS Access.Is it a shot against it if what you 're saying is true ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MySql is a low-end one (and please, don't misinterpret this as shot against it).
But MySQL is low end.
It's about as low end as you can go without using MS Access.Is it a shot against it if what you're saying is true?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30058156</id>
	<title>Re:Good Business</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257075300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Today, you already have mass-market 8-socket x86 servers that accept hexa-core cpus (see HP DL785). Next year they'll accept 12-core cpus at least.</p><p>Note that those are actual x86 cores that can actually do heavy computations, not the puny sparc threads SUN has tried to sell since the T1000 days (it would be hugely optimistic to think 4 sparc threads can do the same work as one such x86 core).</p><p>Those servers are already way under a hundred grand (around 30k if your buyers bother to negociate with HP).</p><p>SPARC hardware is not remotely competitive anymore. Even vapourware Sparc hardware not release yet that may go the way of the Rock for all I know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Today , you already have mass-market 8-socket x86 servers that accept hexa-core cpus ( see HP DL785 ) .
Next year they 'll accept 12-core cpus at least.Note that those are actual x86 cores that can actually do heavy computations , not the puny sparc threads SUN has tried to sell since the T1000 days ( it would be hugely optimistic to think 4 sparc threads can do the same work as one such x86 core ) .Those servers are already way under a hundred grand ( around 30k if your buyers bother to negociate with HP ) .SPARC hardware is not remotely competitive anymore .
Even vapourware Sparc hardware not release yet that may go the way of the Rock for all I know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Today, you already have mass-market 8-socket x86 servers that accept hexa-core cpus (see HP DL785).
Next year they'll accept 12-core cpus at least.Note that those are actual x86 cores that can actually do heavy computations, not the puny sparc threads SUN has tried to sell since the T1000 days (it would be hugely optimistic to think 4 sparc threads can do the same work as one such x86 core).Those servers are already way under a hundred grand (around 30k if your buyers bother to negociate with HP).SPARC hardware is not remotely competitive anymore.
Even vapourware Sparc hardware not release yet that may go the way of the Rock for all I know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30073920</id>
	<title>Re:Why does Oracle need MySQL anyway?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258046880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ns!  Who the hell would want to run a heavy RDMS like Oracle (or any of the dozens of others) when all you need is something fairly small, light, and fairly cheap(assuming purchase of support v. Oracle or any of the others)?</p><p>Of there's the even smaller niche of something like embedded(able) dbs, like sqlite.</p><p>This objection makes absolutely no sense at all, given that IIRC one of the MySQL guys left and forked MySQL after the last release, postgreSQL exists(amongst others) and is more featureful while giving approximately the same speed and requirements, etc.</p><p>The DoJ just ought to object to every single European company merger for the next century at this point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ns !
Who the hell would want to run a heavy RDMS like Oracle ( or any of the dozens of others ) when all you need is something fairly small , light , and fairly cheap ( assuming purchase of support v. Oracle or any of the others ) ? Of there 's the even smaller niche of something like embedded ( able ) dbs , like sqlite.This objection makes absolutely no sense at all , given that IIRC one of the MySQL guys left and forked MySQL after the last release , postgreSQL exists ( amongst others ) and is more featureful while giving approximately the same speed and requirements , etc.The DoJ just ought to object to every single European company merger for the next century at this point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ns!
Who the hell would want to run a heavy RDMS like Oracle (or any of the dozens of others) when all you need is something fairly small, light, and fairly cheap(assuming purchase of support v. Oracle or any of the others)?Of there's the even smaller niche of something like embedded(able) dbs, like sqlite.This objection makes absolutely no sense at all, given that IIRC one of the MySQL guys left and forked MySQL after the last release, postgreSQL exists(amongst others) and is more featureful while giving approximately the same speed and requirements, etc.The DoJ just ought to object to every single European company merger for the next century at this point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30055406</id>
	<title>sale:jordan 1-25,coach,ed hardy handbags,ugg</title>
	<author>coolforsale2010</author>
	<datestamp>1257868320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you want to have a warm winter,you have to know Ugg boots.Ugg boots are &ldquo;must have &rdquo; nike air max jordan<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,shoes, caoch,gucci,lv,dg, ed hardy handbagsin the winter.Now here is an onlinestore , discount 30\%-50\% off,free shipping, you may take a look, you may find the UGGS you want here. <a href="http://www.coolforsale.com/" title="coolforsale.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.coolforsale.com/</a> [coolforsale.com] thanks...</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to have a warm winter,you have to know Ugg boots.Ugg boots are    must have    nike air max jordan ,shoes , caoch,gucci,lv,dg , ed hardy handbagsin the winter.Now here is an onlinestore , discount 30 \ % -50 \ % off,free shipping , you may take a look , you may find the UGGS you want here .
http : //www.coolforsale.com/ [ coolforsale.com ] thanks.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to have a warm winter,you have to know Ugg boots.Ugg boots are “must have ” nike air max jordan ,shoes, caoch,gucci,lv,dg, ed hardy handbagsin the winter.Now here is an onlinestore , discount 30\%-50\% off,free shipping, you may take a look, you may find the UGGS you want here.
http://www.coolforsale.com/ [coolforsale.com] thanks...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30115098</id>
	<title>hah, if Sun's sales were deflating before</title>
	<author>rubycodez</author>
	<datestamp>1258386060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the FUD cloud grows black, Sun's credibility and sales are going totally down the shitter now</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the FUD cloud grows black , Sun 's credibility and sales are going totally down the shitter now</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the FUD cloud grows black, Sun's credibility and sales are going totally down the shitter now</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30055274</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree</title>
	<author>stephanruby</author>
	<datestamp>1257867480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's just silly. Oracle and MySql are not equivalent in the least. Usually both those database products are used for very different uses cases. And it's often that a company that (can afford and) uses Oracle already, will also be using MySql as well, but for very different business/technical purposes. Trying to use Oracle for everything, in my opinion, is just as counter-productive as trying to use MySql for everything. If anything, a frustrated "cowboy" as you say would probably switch to SQL Server or Postgresql, before laying down the kind of serious cash that's needed for Oracle.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's just silly .
Oracle and MySql are not equivalent in the least .
Usually both those database products are used for very different uses cases .
And it 's often that a company that ( can afford and ) uses Oracle already , will also be using MySql as well , but for very different business/technical purposes .
Trying to use Oracle for everything , in my opinion , is just as counter-productive as trying to use MySql for everything .
If anything , a frustrated " cowboy " as you say would probably switch to SQL Server or Postgresql , before laying down the kind of serious cash that 's needed for Oracle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's just silly.
Oracle and MySql are not equivalent in the least.
Usually both those database products are used for very different uses cases.
And it's often that a company that (can afford and) uses Oracle already, will also be using MySql as well, but for very different business/technical purposes.
Trying to use Oracle for everything, in my opinion, is just as counter-productive as trying to use MySql for everything.
If anything, a frustrated "cowboy" as you say would probably switch to SQL Server or Postgresql, before laying down the kind of serious cash that's needed for Oracle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051796</id>
	<title>Okay...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257849060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The EC is.. who now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The EC is.. who now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The EC is.. who now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051988</id>
	<title>Fortunately, the EC is not sleeping like the DoJ</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257849780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the DoJ has forgotten what a free market means: it does not mean the absence of rules it means the freedom to enter and exit a market and to engage in transactions purely voluntarily. This means you need to have alternatives and not a (virtual) monopoly / oligopoly, so I think it's a great move of EC to object to this merger because there is a serious concern that the number of alternatives will shrink (even though MySQL has an open source license). Just my 2 cents.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the DoJ has forgotten what a free market means : it does not mean the absence of rules it means the freedom to enter and exit a market and to engage in transactions purely voluntarily .
This means you need to have alternatives and not a ( virtual ) monopoly / oligopoly , so I think it 's a great move of EC to object to this merger because there is a serious concern that the number of alternatives will shrink ( even though MySQL has an open source license ) .
Just my 2 cents.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the DoJ has forgotten what a free market means: it does not mean the absence of rules it means the freedom to enter and exit a market and to engage in transactions purely voluntarily.
This means you need to have alternatives and not a (virtual) monopoly / oligopoly, so I think it's a great move of EC to object to this merger because there is a serious concern that the number of alternatives will shrink (even though MySQL has an open source license).
Just my 2 cents.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052504</id>
	<title>Re:Okay...</title>
	<author>Shatrat</author>
	<datestamp>1257851820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We'll see what the population is after the civil war.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 'll see what the population is after the civil war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We'll see what the population is after the civil war.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052180</id>
	<title>Re:F the EC</title>
	<author>int69h</author>
	<datestamp>1257850620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually they're multinational companies, and Oracle stands to lose a fair chunk of change if they can't do business in EU countries.  Not that I agree with this retarded group's findings.  The whole "Can't sustain development without being able to sell proprietary licenses" is bunk.  Plenty of opensource projects thrive without being able to sell proprietary licenses.  Linux springs to mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually they 're multinational companies , and Oracle stands to lose a fair chunk of change if they ca n't do business in EU countries .
Not that I agree with this retarded group 's findings .
The whole " Ca n't sustain development without being able to sell proprietary licenses " is bunk .
Plenty of opensource projects thrive without being able to sell proprietary licenses .
Linux springs to mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually they're multinational companies, and Oracle stands to lose a fair chunk of change if they can't do business in EU countries.
Not that I agree with this retarded group's findings.
The whole "Can't sustain development without being able to sell proprietary licenses" is bunk.
Plenty of opensource projects thrive without being able to sell proprietary licenses.
Linux springs to mind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30063990</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257106080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm no DB expert, but much of the hate for MySQL seems (at least a little) unjustified.  For one, their customer list is <a href="http://www.mysql.com/customers/?id=287" title="mysql.com" rel="nofollow">fairly impressive</a> [mysql.com].</p><p>Wikipedia use them, which isn't exactly something to sniff at.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm no DB expert , but much of the hate for MySQL seems ( at least a little ) unjustified .
For one , their customer list is fairly impressive [ mysql.com ] .Wikipedia use them , which is n't exactly something to sniff at .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm no DB expert, but much of the hate for MySQL seems (at least a little) unjustified.
For one, their customer list is fairly impressive [mysql.com].Wikipedia use them, which isn't exactly something to sniff at.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052416</id>
	<title>Re:Mod parent up</title>
	<author>Leafheart</author>
	<datestamp>1257851520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(Sure I can google it, but usually I just move on)</p></div><p>Do you want me to tie your shoes for you, your highness?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( Sure I can google it , but usually I just move on ) Do you want me to tie your shoes for you , your highness ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Sure I can google it, but usually I just move on)Do you want me to tie your shoes for you, your highness?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052452</id>
	<title>Re:F the EC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257851640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stupid fucking bigot.<br>Go fuck yourself</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stupid fucking bigot.Go fuck yourself</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stupid fucking bigot.Go fuck yourself</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30053656</id>
	<title>Perhaps they should adopt easier goals</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257857940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The Europeans' goal is to protect the competitive process &amp; consumer welfare."</p><p>You mean like requiring MS to offer a version of Windows without a browser?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The Europeans ' goal is to protect the competitive process &amp; consumer welfare .
" You mean like requiring MS to offer a version of Windows without a browser ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The Europeans' goal is to protect the competitive process &amp; consumer welfare.
"You mean like requiring MS to offer a version of Windows without a browser?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30059670</id>
	<title>Re:Okay...</title>
	<author>highspl</author>
	<datestamp>1257088620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here you go:

<a href="http://tinyurl.com/yabw37k" title="tinyurl.com" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/yabw37k</a> [tinyurl.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here you go : http : //tinyurl.com/yabw37k [ tinyurl.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here you go:

http://tinyurl.com/yabw37k [tinyurl.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052608</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree</title>
	<author>dbarclay10</author>
	<datestamp>1257852240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"MySql is a low-end [DB]"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... "[some] companies replacing their Oracle database with a MySql one, but those are very few and far between"<br><br>And you can be pretty bloody sure that if Oracle owns MySQL, that'll never change.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>" MySql is a low-end [ DB ] " ... " [ some ] companies replacing their Oracle database with a MySql one , but those are very few and far between " And you can be pretty bloody sure that if Oracle owns MySQL , that 'll never change .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"MySql is a low-end [DB]" ... "[some] companies replacing their Oracle database with a MySql one, but those are very few and far between"And you can be pretty bloody sure that if Oracle owns MySQL, that'll never change.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052838</id>
	<title>Re:Is company health considered?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257853440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Company health? Either way, Sun is dead if this deal goes through--Oracle merely wants dibs on the corpse. They will scavenge what they can, and sell off the rest or simply let it rot.</p><p>Sun has some very cool hardware and software, not to mention an open source friendly attitude--probably none of which will survive the acquisition. I would rather see Sun struggling to survive than on the chopping block for a company like Oracle. I can't imagine that OpenSolaris, ZFS, Sparc, VirtualBox, Java, MySQL, or anything else really, will meet with a good fate.  Things look quite grim in fact, as many of these directly compete with or threaten Oracle's products, or simply don't fit at all.</p><p>So, I can't say I'm disappointed with this decision.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Company health ?
Either way , Sun is dead if this deal goes through--Oracle merely wants dibs on the corpse .
They will scavenge what they can , and sell off the rest or simply let it rot.Sun has some very cool hardware and software , not to mention an open source friendly attitude--probably none of which will survive the acquisition .
I would rather see Sun struggling to survive than on the chopping block for a company like Oracle .
I ca n't imagine that OpenSolaris , ZFS , Sparc , VirtualBox , Java , MySQL , or anything else really , will meet with a good fate .
Things look quite grim in fact , as many of these directly compete with or threaten Oracle 's products , or simply do n't fit at all.So , I ca n't say I 'm disappointed with this decision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Company health?
Either way, Sun is dead if this deal goes through--Oracle merely wants dibs on the corpse.
They will scavenge what they can, and sell off the rest or simply let it rot.Sun has some very cool hardware and software, not to mention an open source friendly attitude--probably none of which will survive the acquisition.
I would rather see Sun struggling to survive than on the chopping block for a company like Oracle.
I can't imagine that OpenSolaris, ZFS, Sparc, VirtualBox, Java, MySQL, or anything else really, will meet with a good fate.
Things look quite grim in fact, as many of these directly compete with or threaten Oracle's products, or simply don't fit at all.So, I can't say I'm disappointed with this decision.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30056522</id>
	<title>How they figure?</title>
	<author>deanston</author>
	<datestamp>1257877620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So EU is basically saying IBM's DB2 and Microsoft's SQL Server, plus PostgreSQL, together ain't much of a competition?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So EU is basically saying IBM 's DB2 and Microsoft 's SQL Server , plus PostgreSQL , together ai n't much of a competition ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So EU is basically saying IBM's DB2 and Microsoft's SQL Server, plus PostgreSQL, together ain't much of a competition?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052506</id>
	<title>I object</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257851820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>to the EC controlling so much to Europe.  How about we break YOUR asses up to nurture competition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>to the EC controlling so much to Europe .
How about we break YOUR asses up to nurture competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to the EC controlling so much to Europe.
How about we break YOUR asses up to nurture competition.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30069220</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree</title>
	<author>bigpat</author>
	<datestamp>1257094740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What does marketing have to do with it?    MySQL was just introducing the clustering features that database users needed in order to more easily use MySQL in enterprise settings.  "High end" is only good if you actually have product features that really differentiate it from the free product.  One by one those "high end" features were less and less obvious.  And MySQL was already being openly used by a lot of high volume websites, so it was getting proven results.</p><p>The trend line was extremely clear, anyone starting a fresh software project that required a database was probably better off with a MySQL back end rather than try to work under Oracle's onerous licensing costs. MySQL was or soon would be undermining Oracle's market, so they keep MySQL from introducing any more features and undermining Oracle's bread and butter business.  I'm sure there are other benefits that Oracle was expecting, but this one was probably pretty key.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What does marketing have to do with it ?
MySQL was just introducing the clustering features that database users needed in order to more easily use MySQL in enterprise settings .
" High end " is only good if you actually have product features that really differentiate it from the free product .
One by one those " high end " features were less and less obvious .
And MySQL was already being openly used by a lot of high volume websites , so it was getting proven results.The trend line was extremely clear , anyone starting a fresh software project that required a database was probably better off with a MySQL back end rather than try to work under Oracle 's onerous licensing costs .
MySQL was or soon would be undermining Oracle 's market , so they keep MySQL from introducing any more features and undermining Oracle 's bread and butter business .
I 'm sure there are other benefits that Oracle was expecting , but this one was probably pretty key .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does marketing have to do with it?
MySQL was just introducing the clustering features that database users needed in order to more easily use MySQL in enterprise settings.
"High end" is only good if you actually have product features that really differentiate it from the free product.
One by one those "high end" features were less and less obvious.
And MySQL was already being openly used by a lot of high volume websites, so it was getting proven results.The trend line was extremely clear, anyone starting a fresh software project that required a database was probably better off with a MySQL back end rather than try to work under Oracle's onerous licensing costs.
MySQL was or soon would be undermining Oracle's market, so they keep MySQL from introducing any more features and undermining Oracle's bread and butter business.
I'm sure there are other benefits that Oracle was expecting, but this one was probably pretty key.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052292</id>
	<title>Re:F the EC</title>
	<author>NoYob</author>
	<datestamp>1257851040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Oracle can suggest they either stop selling SUN hardware or Oracle software to the EU, and let those bueacratic bastards pick how they best wish to further retard the quality of their citizens lives. </i> <p>SUN and Oracle are not that important. There's IBM, MS, SAP, Compaq, and a few other vendors that are praying to their personal god that the EC knocks Oracle on their ass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oracle can suggest they either stop selling SUN hardware or Oracle software to the EU , and let those bueacratic bastards pick how they best wish to further retard the quality of their citizens lives .
SUN and Oracle are not that important .
There 's IBM , MS , SAP , Compaq , and a few other vendors that are praying to their personal god that the EC knocks Oracle on their ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oracle can suggest they either stop selling SUN hardware or Oracle software to the EU, and let those bueacratic bastards pick how they best wish to further retard the quality of their citizens lives.
SUN and Oracle are not that important.
There's IBM, MS, SAP, Compaq, and a few other vendors that are praying to their personal god that the EC knocks Oracle on their ass.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052442</id>
	<title>Multinationals aren't based in a single country</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1257851640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am not a business lawyer.  However, if the Chinese Companies that wanted to merge included EU-based subsidiaries then I expect that, yes, they would have a problem with that and have the legal authority to block the merger via preventing the merge of those subsidiary companies.  If Oracle and Sun want to pull out of the EU they'd have to uproot the fairly substantial business operations, buildings and staff that they have there.  Oracle, in particular, has a huge office in the UK.</p><p>If they don't want to be within the jurisdiction of the EU, I imagine they'd need to remove the technical and sales operations in those countries as well, move all those business operations to the US and then export from there to EU-based companies.  They could have done that if they wanted to stay out of EU regulatory reach.  So given they did not, they've already chosen to expose themselves to EU law.  At that point, being subject to the local legal system is a cost of doing business there, like paying the local taxes.  Their available remedy, similarly to the tax situation, is to lobby for a change of law or to move operations to a country where they like the laws better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not a business lawyer .
However , if the Chinese Companies that wanted to merge included EU-based subsidiaries then I expect that , yes , they would have a problem with that and have the legal authority to block the merger via preventing the merge of those subsidiary companies .
If Oracle and Sun want to pull out of the EU they 'd have to uproot the fairly substantial business operations , buildings and staff that they have there .
Oracle , in particular , has a huge office in the UK.If they do n't want to be within the jurisdiction of the EU , I imagine they 'd need to remove the technical and sales operations in those countries as well , move all those business operations to the US and then export from there to EU-based companies .
They could have done that if they wanted to stay out of EU regulatory reach .
So given they did not , they 've already chosen to expose themselves to EU law .
At that point , being subject to the local legal system is a cost of doing business there , like paying the local taxes .
Their available remedy , similarly to the tax situation , is to lobby for a change of law or to move operations to a country where they like the laws better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not a business lawyer.
However, if the Chinese Companies that wanted to merge included EU-based subsidiaries then I expect that, yes, they would have a problem with that and have the legal authority to block the merger via preventing the merge of those subsidiary companies.
If Oracle and Sun want to pull out of the EU they'd have to uproot the fairly substantial business operations, buildings and staff that they have there.
Oracle, in particular, has a huge office in the UK.If they don't want to be within the jurisdiction of the EU, I imagine they'd need to remove the technical and sales operations in those countries as well, move all those business operations to the US and then export from there to EU-based companies.
They could have done that if they wanted to stay out of EU regulatory reach.
So given they did not, they've already chosen to expose themselves to EU law.
At that point, being subject to the local legal system is a cost of doing business there, like paying the local taxes.
Their available remedy, similarly to the tax situation, is to lobby for a change of law or to move operations to a country where they like the laws better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30053276</id>
	<title>Re:F the EC</title>
	<author>Disgruntled Goats</author>
	<datestamp>1257855840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The whole "Can't sustain development without being able to sell proprietary licenses" is bunk.</p></div><p>No, it's not bunk.  Monty Wideanus is quite correct that services model can not sustain MySQL's cost.  But if Monty was so worried about the fate of MySQL then maybe the jackass shouldn't have sold it in the first place, no?  This sounds like seller's remorse on his part.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Plenty of opensource projects thrive without being able to sell proprietary licenses. Linux springs to mind.</p></div><p>That's because they have corporate sponsors.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole " Ca n't sustain development without being able to sell proprietary licenses " is bunk.No , it 's not bunk .
Monty Wideanus is quite correct that services model can not sustain MySQL 's cost .
But if Monty was so worried about the fate of MySQL then maybe the jackass should n't have sold it in the first place , no ?
This sounds like seller 's remorse on his part.Plenty of opensource projects thrive without being able to sell proprietary licenses .
Linux springs to mind.That 's because they have corporate sponsors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole "Can't sustain development without being able to sell proprietary licenses" is bunk.No, it's not bunk.
Monty Wideanus is quite correct that services model can not sustain MySQL's cost.
But if Monty was so worried about the fate of MySQL then maybe the jackass shouldn't have sold it in the first place, no?
This sounds like seller's remorse on his part.Plenty of opensource projects thrive without being able to sell proprietary licenses.
Linux springs to mind.That's because they have corporate sponsors.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052464</id>
	<title>Re:F the EC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257851700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I assume you know that the US has applied many times a "principle" of extra-territoriality, right ?... with the argumentation that if they do (or did) business in the US, they are to obey US rules. Fair enough. The same thing works the other way as well, and Oracle and Sun can always refuse this judgement and stop doing business in Europe. No harm done.

Would you like some Liberty fries with that ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I assume you know that the US has applied many times a " principle " of extra-territoriality , right ? .. .
with the argumentation that if they do ( or did ) business in the US , they are to obey US rules .
Fair enough .
The same thing works the other way as well , and Oracle and Sun can always refuse this judgement and stop doing business in Europe .
No harm done .
Would you like some Liberty fries with that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I assume you know that the US has applied many times a "principle" of extra-territoriality, right ?...
with the argumentation that if they do (or did) business in the US, they are to obey US rules.
Fair enough.
The same thing works the other way as well, and Oracle and Sun can always refuse this judgement and stop doing business in Europe.
No harm done.
Would you like some Liberty fries with that ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051856</id>
	<title>EC objects?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257849300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do DC and Marvel think?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do DC and Marvel think ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do DC and Marvel think?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052254</id>
	<title>Re:F the EC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257850920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hear they like to sell their stuff in the EU, so maybe they should care.</p><p>They could not threaten the EU, for fear it would declare their copyrights null and void.</p><p>You seem to have a pretty messed up sense of how the world works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hear they like to sell their stuff in the EU , so maybe they should care.They could not threaten the EU , for fear it would declare their copyrights null and void.You seem to have a pretty messed up sense of how the world works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hear they like to sell their stuff in the EU, so maybe they should care.They could not threaten the EU, for fear it would declare their copyrights null and void.You seem to have a pretty messed up sense of how the world works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30053252</id>
	<title>Re:Fortunately, the EC is not sleeping like the Do</title>
	<author>Disgruntled Goats</author>
	<datestamp>1257855660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> This means you need to have alternatives and not a (virtual) monopoly / oligopoly, so I think it's a great move of EC to object to this merger because there is a serious concern that the number of alternatives will shrink (even though MySQL has an open source license). Just my 2 cents.....</p></div><p>Because all the competitors in the DB market are some how going to vanish because Oracle owns MySQL?  Are you seriously trying to claim that MySQL is the only other DB in existence beyond Oracle's?  And that MySQL is really even a competitor in the enterprise markets that Oracle is?  Oracle's competitors are MS SQL, IBM DB2, Sybase, etc not some dinky piece of crap like MySQL.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This means you need to have alternatives and not a ( virtual ) monopoly / oligopoly , so I think it 's a great move of EC to object to this merger because there is a serious concern that the number of alternatives will shrink ( even though MySQL has an open source license ) .
Just my 2 cents.....Because all the competitors in the DB market are some how going to vanish because Oracle owns MySQL ?
Are you seriously trying to claim that MySQL is the only other DB in existence beyond Oracle 's ?
And that MySQL is really even a competitor in the enterprise markets that Oracle is ?
Oracle 's competitors are MS SQL , IBM DB2 , Sybase , etc not some dinky piece of crap like MySQL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> This means you need to have alternatives and not a (virtual) monopoly / oligopoly, so I think it's a great move of EC to object to this merger because there is a serious concern that the number of alternatives will shrink (even though MySQL has an open source license).
Just my 2 cents.....Because all the competitors in the DB market are some how going to vanish because Oracle owns MySQL?
Are you seriously trying to claim that MySQL is the only other DB in existence beyond Oracle's?
And that MySQL is really even a competitor in the enterprise markets that Oracle is?
Oracle's competitors are MS SQL, IBM DB2, Sybase, etc not some dinky piece of crap like MySQL.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30056072</id>
	<title>Re:Is company health considered?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257872940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>sun is far from going bankrupt. they have $2B+ cash in the bank, and they own all of their campuses outright. they are in a good position to see out the recession. sun software is quite profitable and doing well overall. sun hardware needs to come up with a new game plan, but overall sun is still quite viable. sun hardware, being a high-end sale, was necessarily hit very hard by the recession. assuming the recession ends in the next couple of years, sun certainly has a chance on its own to make it. </p><p>sun is revolutionary in its open source philosophy. will that translate into $? whether it will or won't, 3 years wasn't enough to find out. the same people that were in charge today told us open source was a long term prospect. the same people that voted for the acquisition and took their bonuses from oracle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>sun is far from going bankrupt .
they have $ 2B + cash in the bank , and they own all of their campuses outright .
they are in a good position to see out the recession .
sun software is quite profitable and doing well overall .
sun hardware needs to come up with a new game plan , but overall sun is still quite viable .
sun hardware , being a high-end sale , was necessarily hit very hard by the recession .
assuming the recession ends in the next couple of years , sun certainly has a chance on its own to make it .
sun is revolutionary in its open source philosophy .
will that translate into $ ?
whether it will or wo n't , 3 years was n't enough to find out .
the same people that were in charge today told us open source was a long term prospect .
the same people that voted for the acquisition and took their bonuses from oracle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sun is far from going bankrupt.
they have $2B+ cash in the bank, and they own all of their campuses outright.
they are in a good position to see out the recession.
sun software is quite profitable and doing well overall.
sun hardware needs to come up with a new game plan, but overall sun is still quite viable.
sun hardware, being a high-end sale, was necessarily hit very hard by the recession.
assuming the recession ends in the next couple of years, sun certainly has a chance on its own to make it.
sun is revolutionary in its open source philosophy.
will that translate into $?
whether it will or won't, 3 years wasn't enough to find out.
the same people that were in charge today told us open source was a long term prospect.
the same people that voted for the acquisition and took their bonuses from oracle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30094988</id>
	<title>Re:Good Business</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258132560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you need to (a) understand enterprise servers a bit better, and (b) learn to measure performance better.</p><p>Right now--TODAY--the fastest enterprise server I can buy for $50-100k is from Sun. Power7? Maybe when it ships, it'll catch up to where Niagara has been for the last 18 months.</p><p>IBM's hard partitions are definitely ahead of Sun--hell, they invented it back in the dawn of mainframe computing. Intel's partitioning, by comparison with either one, is laughable.</p><p>Sun disks, um...yeah. No comment. Their pricing is a joke, no argument. Their x86 gear, however, is steps ahead of Dell and HP, the only real competition on that platform. (IBM's x86 division just isn't playing the same game--Power yes, x86 no.) Look at the cost vs. performance graphs, or cost vs. serviceability, or cost vs. power consumption, or...</p><p>Intel's Nehalem processors AREN'T HERE YET. Power7 ISN'T HERE YET. These are the products to kill Sun's three-year-old technology, and they're NOT AVAILABLE YET.</p><p>Honestly, I'm pretty sure that Niagara is SPARC's last great hurrah--the economies of scale just make it impossible to manufacture a niche processor. However, it is, quite objectively, one helluva cool hurrah. I didn't mention the big feature--power. These things are very very low power, compared to the competition. I've seen more data centres run out of power in the last four years than I care to count, and the problem is only getting worse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you need to ( a ) understand enterprise servers a bit better , and ( b ) learn to measure performance better.Right now--TODAY--the fastest enterprise server I can buy for $ 50-100k is from Sun .
Power7 ? Maybe when it ships , it 'll catch up to where Niagara has been for the last 18 months.IBM 's hard partitions are definitely ahead of Sun--hell , they invented it back in the dawn of mainframe computing .
Intel 's partitioning , by comparison with either one , is laughable.Sun disks , um...yeah .
No comment .
Their pricing is a joke , no argument .
Their x86 gear , however , is steps ahead of Dell and HP , the only real competition on that platform .
( IBM 's x86 division just is n't playing the same game--Power yes , x86 no .
) Look at the cost vs. performance graphs , or cost vs. serviceability , or cost vs. power consumption , or...Intel 's Nehalem processors ARE N'T HERE YET .
Power7 IS N'T HERE YET .
These are the products to kill Sun 's three-year-old technology , and they 're NOT AVAILABLE YET.Honestly , I 'm pretty sure that Niagara is SPARC 's last great hurrah--the economies of scale just make it impossible to manufacture a niche processor .
However , it is , quite objectively , one helluva cool hurrah .
I did n't mention the big feature--power .
These things are very very low power , compared to the competition .
I 've seen more data centres run out of power in the last four years than I care to count , and the problem is only getting worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you need to (a) understand enterprise servers a bit better, and (b) learn to measure performance better.Right now--TODAY--the fastest enterprise server I can buy for $50-100k is from Sun.
Power7? Maybe when it ships, it'll catch up to where Niagara has been for the last 18 months.IBM's hard partitions are definitely ahead of Sun--hell, they invented it back in the dawn of mainframe computing.
Intel's partitioning, by comparison with either one, is laughable.Sun disks, um...yeah.
No comment.
Their pricing is a joke, no argument.
Their x86 gear, however, is steps ahead of Dell and HP, the only real competition on that platform.
(IBM's x86 division just isn't playing the same game--Power yes, x86 no.
) Look at the cost vs. performance graphs, or cost vs. serviceability, or cost vs. power consumption, or...Intel's Nehalem processors AREN'T HERE YET.
Power7 ISN'T HERE YET.
These are the products to kill Sun's three-year-old technology, and they're NOT AVAILABLE YET.Honestly, I'm pretty sure that Niagara is SPARC's last great hurrah--the economies of scale just make it impossible to manufacture a niche processor.
However, it is, quite objectively, one helluva cool hurrah.
I didn't mention the big feature--power.
These things are very very low power, compared to the competition.
I've seen more data centres run out of power in the last four years than I care to count, and the problem is only getting worse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30057964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30057964</id>
	<title>Re:Good Business</title>
	<author>bertok</author>
	<datestamp>1257073500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>"Some hardware engineering but that SPARC stuff really isn't competitive."</i> </p><p>Really?</p><p>How much do you know about "that SPARC stuff?" It's true that x86 has finally surpassed a lot of the things that Sparc led the way in, but there are still ways that traditional Sparc scales better.</p><p>Now moving to the next generation of Sun's gear, we have hardware virtualisation and CoolThreads. Under a hundred grand will buy you a system with four 8-core CPUs, and <b>each core</b> can process eight simultaneous threads. That is OLTP nirvana! Too much power? Chop it up into a handful of smaller servers, each running their own OS. Any one of them can in turn be split into zones--soft OS partitions.</p><p>I keep hearing about how Sparc is obsolete, and yet the new generation of Sparc processors and supporting hardware is pushing the state of the art that Intel and AMD aren't even planning in yet.</p></div><p>Umm... what?</p><p>First of all, for "a hundred grand", I can buy 10 systems that add up to 80 Intel 3Ghz cores (160 threads) with 720GB of memory, which is going to <i>shit all over that SUN box</i> with its anemic 1Ghz processors. That's retail pricing, in Aussie dollars! Including tax! Delivered to your door in under a week, assembled!</p><p>Meanwhile, to get that SUN box, I'd have to "call your nearest SUN dealer". Oh good, I can't wait to have him explain to me how spending $100K is going to "save me money", or something.</p><p>I'll grant you that 32 cores in a single box is needed for those rare cases where you need "one big box to rule them all", but SUN has dropped the ball on that too:</p><p>Intel is releasing their 2GHz+ 8 core, 16 thread <a href="http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20090526comp.htm" title="intel.com">Nehalem-EX</a> [intel.com] processors this year (or very early next year), and it has glue-less scaling to 8 processor sockets (64 cores, 128 threads) and a jaw-dropping 128 DIMM sockets. With the dirt-cheap 4GB DIMMs that most people are buying, you could pack in 512GB into a single box for a mere $24K. Again, that's retail pricing, in Aussie dollars, including tax.</p><p>Meanwhile, IBM is about to ship their 4GHz+ 8 Core, 32 thread <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POWER7" title="wikipedia.org">POWER7 CPU</a> [wikipedia.org], which scales to 32 sockets. In case you missed that, it's 4x the clock rate and 8x the sockets, or 32x the performance of that SUN server.</p><p>Not to mention that both IBM and Intel processors have had virtualization (same thing as "zones" or "partitions") for a <i>long</i> time now, and can run more than one kind of OS side-by-side. The POWER processors can run various IBM operating systems as well as Linux, and Intel is compatible with damned near anything, <i>including Solaris</i>.</p><p>Face it, SPARC is dead, the big-boys are making chips with several times the power, for a fraction of the cost. (admittedly, POWER7 isn't going to be cheap)</p><p>PS: I'm not surprised SUN is generally losing their market share, even their x86 kit is overpriced. I personally love the concept of the SUN Thumper ZFS-based storage array, and was all excited about it, right up until I saw their pricing model: They only go to up to 1TB drives, and it's actually cheaper to buy the model with 250GB drives, then <i>throw the drives out</i>, and go buy 48 replacement 2TB SATA drives from a retail store. That's 2x the storage for 1/2 the cost. Insanity.</p><p>I think SUN forgot that some of their potential clients can <i>count</i>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Some hardware engineering but that SPARC stuff really is n't competitive .
" Really ? How much do you know about " that SPARC stuff ?
" It 's true that x86 has finally surpassed a lot of the things that Sparc led the way in , but there are still ways that traditional Sparc scales better.Now moving to the next generation of Sun 's gear , we have hardware virtualisation and CoolThreads .
Under a hundred grand will buy you a system with four 8-core CPUs , and each core can process eight simultaneous threads .
That is OLTP nirvana !
Too much power ?
Chop it up into a handful of smaller servers , each running their own OS .
Any one of them can in turn be split into zones--soft OS partitions.I keep hearing about how Sparc is obsolete , and yet the new generation of Sparc processors and supporting hardware is pushing the state of the art that Intel and AMD are n't even planning in yet.Umm... what ? First of all , for " a hundred grand " , I can buy 10 systems that add up to 80 Intel 3Ghz cores ( 160 threads ) with 720GB of memory , which is going to shit all over that SUN box with its anemic 1Ghz processors .
That 's retail pricing , in Aussie dollars !
Including tax !
Delivered to your door in under a week , assembled ! Meanwhile , to get that SUN box , I 'd have to " call your nearest SUN dealer " .
Oh good , I ca n't wait to have him explain to me how spending $ 100K is going to " save me money " , or something.I 'll grant you that 32 cores in a single box is needed for those rare cases where you need " one big box to rule them all " , but SUN has dropped the ball on that too : Intel is releasing their 2GHz + 8 core , 16 thread Nehalem-EX [ intel.com ] processors this year ( or very early next year ) , and it has glue-less scaling to 8 processor sockets ( 64 cores , 128 threads ) and a jaw-dropping 128 DIMM sockets .
With the dirt-cheap 4GB DIMMs that most people are buying , you could pack in 512GB into a single box for a mere $ 24K .
Again , that 's retail pricing , in Aussie dollars , including tax.Meanwhile , IBM is about to ship their 4GHz + 8 Core , 32 thread POWER7 CPU [ wikipedia.org ] , which scales to 32 sockets .
In case you missed that , it 's 4x the clock rate and 8x the sockets , or 32x the performance of that SUN server.Not to mention that both IBM and Intel processors have had virtualization ( same thing as " zones " or " partitions " ) for a long time now , and can run more than one kind of OS side-by-side .
The POWER processors can run various IBM operating systems as well as Linux , and Intel is compatible with damned near anything , including Solaris.Face it , SPARC is dead , the big-boys are making chips with several times the power , for a fraction of the cost .
( admittedly , POWER7 is n't going to be cheap ) PS : I 'm not surprised SUN is generally losing their market share , even their x86 kit is overpriced .
I personally love the concept of the SUN Thumper ZFS-based storage array , and was all excited about it , right up until I saw their pricing model : They only go to up to 1TB drives , and it 's actually cheaper to buy the model with 250GB drives , then throw the drives out , and go buy 48 replacement 2TB SATA drives from a retail store .
That 's 2x the storage for 1/2 the cost .
Insanity.I think SUN forgot that some of their potential clients can count .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "Some hardware engineering but that SPARC stuff really isn't competitive.
" Really?How much do you know about "that SPARC stuff?
" It's true that x86 has finally surpassed a lot of the things that Sparc led the way in, but there are still ways that traditional Sparc scales better.Now moving to the next generation of Sun's gear, we have hardware virtualisation and CoolThreads.
Under a hundred grand will buy you a system with four 8-core CPUs, and each core can process eight simultaneous threads.
That is OLTP nirvana!
Too much power?
Chop it up into a handful of smaller servers, each running their own OS.
Any one of them can in turn be split into zones--soft OS partitions.I keep hearing about how Sparc is obsolete, and yet the new generation of Sparc processors and supporting hardware is pushing the state of the art that Intel and AMD aren't even planning in yet.Umm... what?First of all, for "a hundred grand", I can buy 10 systems that add up to 80 Intel 3Ghz cores (160 threads) with 720GB of memory, which is going to shit all over that SUN box with its anemic 1Ghz processors.
That's retail pricing, in Aussie dollars!
Including tax!
Delivered to your door in under a week, assembled!Meanwhile, to get that SUN box, I'd have to "call your nearest SUN dealer".
Oh good, I can't wait to have him explain to me how spending $100K is going to "save me money", or something.I'll grant you that 32 cores in a single box is needed for those rare cases where you need "one big box to rule them all", but SUN has dropped the ball on that too:Intel is releasing their 2GHz+ 8 core, 16 thread Nehalem-EX [intel.com] processors this year (or very early next year), and it has glue-less scaling to 8 processor sockets (64 cores, 128 threads) and a jaw-dropping 128 DIMM sockets.
With the dirt-cheap 4GB DIMMs that most people are buying, you could pack in 512GB into a single box for a mere $24K.
Again, that's retail pricing, in Aussie dollars, including tax.Meanwhile, IBM is about to ship their 4GHz+ 8 Core, 32 thread POWER7 CPU [wikipedia.org], which scales to 32 sockets.
In case you missed that, it's 4x the clock rate and 8x the sockets, or 32x the performance of that SUN server.Not to mention that both IBM and Intel processors have had virtualization (same thing as "zones" or "partitions") for a long time now, and can run more than one kind of OS side-by-side.
The POWER processors can run various IBM operating systems as well as Linux, and Intel is compatible with damned near anything, including Solaris.Face it, SPARC is dead, the big-boys are making chips with several times the power, for a fraction of the cost.
(admittedly, POWER7 isn't going to be cheap)PS: I'm not surprised SUN is generally losing their market share, even their x86 kit is overpriced.
I personally love the concept of the SUN Thumper ZFS-based storage array, and was all excited about it, right up until I saw their pricing model: They only go to up to 1TB drives, and it's actually cheaper to buy the model with 250GB drives, then throw the drives out, and go buy 48 replacement 2TB SATA drives from a retail store.
That's 2x the storage for 1/2 the cost.
Insanity.I think SUN forgot that some of their potential clients can count.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052302</id>
	<title>Re:F the EC</title>
	<author>H0p313ss</author>
	<datestamp>1257851100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Both Oracle and Sun do an enormous amount of business in Europe and as such I expect they operate locale offices or divisions that exist as entities subject to European law.</p><p>Similarly US subsidiaries of organizations such as Siemens who are primarily European are subject to US law. (And why it was legal for Cuba to nationalize all those companies way beck when, their ball, their rules.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Both Oracle and Sun do an enormous amount of business in Europe and as such I expect they operate locale offices or divisions that exist as entities subject to European law.Similarly US subsidiaries of organizations such as Siemens who are primarily European are subject to US law .
( And why it was legal for Cuba to nationalize all those companies way beck when , their ball , their rules .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both Oracle and Sun do an enormous amount of business in Europe and as such I expect they operate locale offices or divisions that exist as entities subject to European law.Similarly US subsidiaries of organizations such as Siemens who are primarily European are subject to US law.
(And why it was legal for Cuba to nationalize all those companies way beck when, their ball, their rules.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30057972</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257073560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope Ms. Kroes gets shafted in her lil' ass for blocking the deal!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope Ms. Kroes gets shafted in her lil ' ass for blocking the deal !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope Ms. Kroes gets shafted in her lil' ass for blocking the deal!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051986</id>
	<title>Re:Okay...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257849780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EC" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EC</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Effectively, it's the EU.</p><p>Population of EU is about 500 million vs. 308 million for the USA, so the EC is kinda significant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EC [ wikipedia.org ] Effectively , it 's the EU.Population of EU is about 500 million vs. 308 million for the USA , so the EC is kinda significant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EC [wikipedia.org]Effectively, it's the EU.Population of EU is about 500 million vs. 308 million for the USA, so the EC is kinda significant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051796</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30058156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30058360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30073920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30053476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30053880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30058070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30053906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30115046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30056072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30059924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30053268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30067524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30053252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30053276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30053378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30054024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30055802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30057522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30053438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30053046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30053378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30067882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30053502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30053650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30053748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30054674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30056024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30066986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30058498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30062032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30069220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30055274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30057040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30057964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30094988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30053656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30063990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30053210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30059670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30058406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30056026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30056896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30055962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30057610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30062570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1922206_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1922206.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30062032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30059924
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1922206.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051868
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1922206.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30057522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30056026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30053906
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30115046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30067524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052650
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1922206.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052762
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30055274
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30055802
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30066986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30055962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30053046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30058070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30069220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052624
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30063990
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1922206.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052248
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1922206.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30058406
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1922206.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30058360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30053476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052472
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30053880
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30073920
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1922206.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052224
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052864
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30057040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052312
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30062570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052180
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30056896
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30053276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052316
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1922206.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30053252
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1922206.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052566
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1922206.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052748
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1922206.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052952
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30057964
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30094988
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30058156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30056024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30053502
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1922206.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051824
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1922206.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30053378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30054024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30067882
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1922206.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051998
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30058498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051966
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052130
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30053268
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30054674
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052416
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052172
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30059670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051986
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052504
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30053438
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1922206.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30053666
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1922206.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052266
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30057610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30053748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30056072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30053210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30052578
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30053656
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30053650
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1922206.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1922206.30051930
</commentlist>
</conversation>
