<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_12_1943254</id>
	<title>HTTP Intermediary Layer From Google Could Dramatically Speed Up the Web</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1258012800000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>grmoc writes <i>"As part of the <a href="http://code.google.com/speed/">'Let's make the web faster' initiative</a>, we (a few engineers  &mdash; including me! &mdash;  at Google, and hopefully people all across the community soon!) are experimenting with alternative protocols to help reduce the latency of Web pages. One of these experiments is <a href="http://sites.google.com/a/chromium.org/dev/spdy/spdy-whitepaper">SPDY</a> (pronounced 'SPeeDY'), an application-layer protocol (essentially a shim between HTTP and the bits on the wire) for transporting content over the web, designed specifically for minimal latency.  In addition to a rough specification for the protocol, we have hacked SPDY into the Google Chrome browser (because it's what we're familiar with) and a simple server testbed. Using these hacked up bits, we compared the performance of many of the top 25 and top 300 websites over both HTTP and SPDY, and have observed those pages load, on average, about twice as fast using SPDY. Thats not bad! We hope to engage the open source community to contribute ideas, feedback, code (we've open sourced the protocol, etc!), and test results."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>grmoc writes " As part of the 'Let 's make the web faster ' initiative , we ( a few engineers    including me !
   at Google , and hopefully people all across the community soon !
) are experimenting with alternative protocols to help reduce the latency of Web pages .
One of these experiments is SPDY ( pronounced 'SPeeDY ' ) , an application-layer protocol ( essentially a shim between HTTP and the bits on the wire ) for transporting content over the web , designed specifically for minimal latency .
In addition to a rough specification for the protocol , we have hacked SPDY into the Google Chrome browser ( because it 's what we 're familiar with ) and a simple server testbed .
Using these hacked up bits , we compared the performance of many of the top 25 and top 300 websites over both HTTP and SPDY , and have observed those pages load , on average , about twice as fast using SPDY .
Thats not bad !
We hope to engage the open source community to contribute ideas , feedback , code ( we 've open sourced the protocol , etc !
) , and test results .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>grmoc writes "As part of the 'Let's make the web faster' initiative, we (a few engineers  — including me!
—  at Google, and hopefully people all across the community soon!
) are experimenting with alternative protocols to help reduce the latency of Web pages.
One of these experiments is SPDY (pronounced 'SPeeDY'), an application-layer protocol (essentially a shim between HTTP and the bits on the wire) for transporting content over the web, designed specifically for minimal latency.
In addition to a rough specification for the protocol, we have hacked SPDY into the Google Chrome browser (because it's what we're familiar with) and a simple server testbed.
Using these hacked up bits, we compared the performance of many of the top 25 and top 300 websites over both HTTP and SPDY, and have observed those pages load, on average, about twice as fast using SPDY.
Thats not bad!
We hope to engage the open source community to contribute ideas, feedback, code (we've open sourced the protocol, etc!
), and test results.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078370</id>
	<title>Re:Just turn off image loading</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1258018320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Speaking seriously, once the main page of HTML is downloaded you pretty much know already where everything goes.</p><p>Just stub it out with "loading" boxes in spots where you don't have all the content.  Especially if parameters like width= and height= already fix how big the final image is going to be.</p><p>When something finishes loading, just update the layout.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking seriously , once the main page of HTML is downloaded you pretty much know already where everything goes.Just stub it out with " loading " boxes in spots where you do n't have all the content .
Especially if parameters like width = and height = already fix how big the final image is going to be.When something finishes loading , just update the layout .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking seriously, once the main page of HTML is downloaded you pretty much know already where everything goes.Just stub it out with "loading" boxes in spots where you don't have all the content.
Especially if parameters like width= and height= already fix how big the final image is going to be.When something finishes loading, just update the layout.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078232</id>
	<title>Re:Akamai?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258017840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's same as Akamai as a particular technology is to a particular hack.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's same as Akamai as a particular technology is to a particular hack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's same as Akamai as a particular technology is to a particular hack.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079102</id>
	<title>Re:Akamai?</title>
	<author>paulzeye</author>
	<datestamp>1258021080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>small nitpick- Akamai redirects requests to the appliance closest to the requester's reslover.</htmltext>
<tokenext>small nitpick- Akamai redirects requests to the appliance closest to the requester 's reslover .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>small nitpick- Akamai redirects requests to the appliance closest to the requester's reslover.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079198</id>
	<title>Would appreciate it if instead...</title>
	<author>jddj</author>
	<datestamp>1258021440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>you got my new Droid to be able to dial hands-free and sync with Outlook. Would help me out a bunch more than faster http. No, really...</htmltext>
<tokenext>you got my new Droid to be able to dial hands-free and sync with Outlook .
Would help me out a bunch more than faster http .
No , really.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you got my new Droid to be able to dial hands-free and sync with Outlook.
Would help me out a bunch more than faster http.
No, really...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078380</id>
	<title>Re:Solving the wrong problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258018380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Remember how CSS was supposed to make web pages shorter and faster to load? NOT.</p></div><p>I don't remember that ever being one of the goals of CSS. I thought it was about separating presentation from content.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember how CSS was supposed to make web pages shorter and faster to load ?
NOT.I do n't remember that ever being one of the goals of CSS .
I thought it was about separating presentation from content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember how CSS was supposed to make web pages shorter and faster to load?
NOT.I don't remember that ever being one of the goals of CSS.
I thought it was about separating presentation from content.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30082148</id>
	<title>Re:Before you click!</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1258034700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How else would I watch 90210 streaming videos over my phoneline?</p></div><p>Codecs have gotten so impressive now that 256x160 30fps can be streamed over 56k.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How else would I watch 90210 streaming videos over my phoneline ? Codecs have gotten so impressive now that 256x160 30fps can be streamed over 56k .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How else would I watch 90210 streaming videos over my phoneline?Codecs have gotten so impressive now that 256x160 30fps can be streamed over 56k.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078324</id>
	<title>Re:Solving the wrong problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258018140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But Google is the ad server...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But Google is the ad server.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But Google is the ad server...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30084992</id>
	<title>diffserv and IPv6 label?</title>
	<author>GNUPublicLicense</author>
	<datestamp>1258112400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey... first thing first: normalized at IETF a proper IPv6 label for web document. Then, let IAPs deal with that label. BTW diffserv support is important too because it does work also with IPv4... but in which diffserv class with which priority shall we put the "web document traffic"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey... first thing first : normalized at IETF a proper IPv6 label for web document .
Then , let IAPs deal with that label .
BTW diffserv support is important too because it does work also with IPv4... but in which diffserv class with which priority shall we put the " web document traffic " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey... first thing first: normalized at IETF a proper IPv6 label for web document.
Then, let IAPs deal with that label.
BTW diffserv support is important too because it does work also with IPv4... but in which diffserv class with which priority shall we put the "web document traffic"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078998</id>
	<title>Re:Before you click!</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1258020720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i><br>In the future, the content will be loaded before you click! Unfortunately, it's not like it today, so I didn't make the first post...<br></i></p><p>In the future, the future will happen in <a href="http://fasterfox.mozdev.org/" title="mozdev.org">the past</a> [mozdev.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the future , the content will be loaded before you click !
Unfortunately , it 's not like it today , so I did n't make the first post...In the future , the future will happen in the past [ mozdev.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the future, the content will be loaded before you click!
Unfortunately, it's not like it today, so I didn't make the first post...In the future, the future will happen in the past [mozdev.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30081416</id>
	<title>Re:While we're at it ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258030200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dude, the W3C had provided us with all of that. Unfortunately, the community as a whole (including some of the major players like Google, Apple, Mozilla, and Opera) are pretty fucking stupid, and have thrown it all away in favor of the piece of shit that is HTML 5.</p><p>The "extensible language" you propose is called XML. XHTML provides the core set of elements for the web environment. Upon that foundation you can come up with your own XML schema, in its own namespace, to add additional elements.</p><p><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms/" title="w3.org" rel="nofollow">XForms</a> [w3.org] is the presentation layer that you want. Go read the spec. It's exactly what you propose.</p><p>Yahoo! and Google, among others, have become the distribution network you seek. You can download a variety of JavaScript libraries from their hosts, rather than hosting it on your server. That way they can be cached and reused among multiple sites.</p><p>The "binary form" that you're speaking of is deflate, gzip or bzip2 compressed XML.</p><p>As for combining semantics, presentation and scripting, HTML was like that in the beginning. It got the purists all up in arms.</p><p>Don't bother working on your ideas. The W3C looked into them ages ago, but the community has decided instead to take the stupid path and go with HTML 5.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude , the W3C had provided us with all of that .
Unfortunately , the community as a whole ( including some of the major players like Google , Apple , Mozilla , and Opera ) are pretty fucking stupid , and have thrown it all away in favor of the piece of shit that is HTML 5.The " extensible language " you propose is called XML .
XHTML provides the core set of elements for the web environment .
Upon that foundation you can come up with your own XML schema , in its own namespace , to add additional elements.XForms [ w3.org ] is the presentation layer that you want .
Go read the spec .
It 's exactly what you propose.Yahoo !
and Google , among others , have become the distribution network you seek .
You can download a variety of JavaScript libraries from their hosts , rather than hosting it on your server .
That way they can be cached and reused among multiple sites.The " binary form " that you 're speaking of is deflate , gzip or bzip2 compressed XML.As for combining semantics , presentation and scripting , HTML was like that in the beginning .
It got the purists all up in arms.Do n't bother working on your ideas .
The W3C looked into them ages ago , but the community has decided instead to take the stupid path and go with HTML 5 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude, the W3C had provided us with all of that.
Unfortunately, the community as a whole (including some of the major players like Google, Apple, Mozilla, and Opera) are pretty fucking stupid, and have thrown it all away in favor of the piece of shit that is HTML 5.The "extensible language" you propose is called XML.
XHTML provides the core set of elements for the web environment.
Upon that foundation you can come up with your own XML schema, in its own namespace, to add additional elements.XForms [w3.org] is the presentation layer that you want.
Go read the spec.
It's exactly what you propose.Yahoo!
and Google, among others, have become the distribution network you seek.
You can download a variety of JavaScript libraries from their hosts, rather than hosting it on your server.
That way they can be cached and reused among multiple sites.The "binary form" that you're speaking of is deflate, gzip or bzip2 compressed XML.As for combining semantics, presentation and scripting, HTML was like that in the beginning.
It got the purists all up in arms.Don't bother working on your ideas.
The W3C looked into them ages ago, but the community has decided instead to take the stupid path and go with HTML 5.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079122</id>
	<title>Re:How about telling Analytics to take a hike?</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1258021140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I want my old Internet back.</p></div></blockquote><p>No problem. <a href="http://adblockplus.org/" title="adblockplus.org">Here you go.</a> [adblockplus.org] </p><blockquote><div><p>And a pony.</p></div></blockquote><p><a href="http://www.chrisfinke.com/addons/slashdotter/" title="chrisfinke.com">Done.</a> [chrisfinke.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I want my old Internet back.No problem .
Here you go .
[ adblockplus.org ] And a pony.Done .
[ chrisfinke.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want my old Internet back.No problem.
Here you go.
[adblockplus.org] And a pony.Done.
[chrisfinke.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078560</id>
	<title>Re:Solving the wrong problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258019100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is so very telling that we're discussing this on a web site that almost can't be scrolled on a 1.6GHz Atom processor, on occasion triggers the runaway script dialog on the homepage and is hardly usable without Javascript either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is so very telling that we 're discussing this on a web site that almost ca n't be scrolled on a 1.6GHz Atom processor , on occasion triggers the runaway script dialog on the homepage and is hardly usable without Javascript either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is so very telling that we're discussing this on a web site that almost can't be scrolled on a 1.6GHz Atom processor, on occasion triggers the runaway script dialog on the homepage and is hardly usable without Javascript either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30084924</id>
	<title>Re:How about downsides...</title>
	<author>cheekyboy</author>
	<datestamp>1258111260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Compression has been optional and available for 10 years.</p><p>The client tells server it can decompress, and the server decides to send 'pre cached compressed' content, or compress dynamic content if it likes.</p><p>eg.   A 150kb FAQ would be quicker to show if it compresses to 30kb.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Compression has been optional and available for 10 years.The client tells server it can decompress , and the server decides to send 'pre cached compressed ' content , or compress dynamic content if it likes.eg .
A 150kb FAQ would be quicker to show if it compresses to 30kb .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Compression has been optional and available for 10 years.The client tells server it can decompress, and the server decides to send 'pre cached compressed' content, or compress dynamic content if it likes.eg.
A 150kb FAQ would be quicker to show if it compresses to 30kb.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078490</id>
	<title>Cell phones</title>
	<author>nexxuz</author>
	<datestamp>1258018800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This sound like it would be perfect for cell phone browsers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This sound like it would be perfect for cell phone browsers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sound like it would be perfect for cell phone browsers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30082870</id>
	<title>Re:Before you click!</title>
	<author>dlgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1258041240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll skip your questions about the headers, since other people have already replied. As for using the same connection, if you read the paper, you'll see it's very different than HTTP/1.1. HTTP/1.1 allows pipelining requests on a single connection, but there's only one serialized stream - any delay (such as having to hit disk instead of cache or whatnot) holds up the entire stream. You save the cost of reopening a TCP connection, but you can't do anything in parallel. Thus, modern browsers usually use about 6 different TCP connections, which throws off all of the optimizations TCP does. SPDY multiplexes multiple streams into one connection so things can be served in parallel. Thus if you're hitting the disk retrieving one object, you can still send the next one out of the cache.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll skip your questions about the headers , since other people have already replied .
As for using the same connection , if you read the paper , you 'll see it 's very different than HTTP/1.1 .
HTTP/1.1 allows pipelining requests on a single connection , but there 's only one serialized stream - any delay ( such as having to hit disk instead of cache or whatnot ) holds up the entire stream .
You save the cost of reopening a TCP connection , but you ca n't do anything in parallel .
Thus , modern browsers usually use about 6 different TCP connections , which throws off all of the optimizations TCP does .
SPDY multiplexes multiple streams into one connection so things can be served in parallel .
Thus if you 're hitting the disk retrieving one object , you can still send the next one out of the cache .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll skip your questions about the headers, since other people have already replied.
As for using the same connection, if you read the paper, you'll see it's very different than HTTP/1.1.
HTTP/1.1 allows pipelining requests on a single connection, but there's only one serialized stream - any delay (such as having to hit disk instead of cache or whatnot) holds up the entire stream.
You save the cost of reopening a TCP connection, but you can't do anything in parallel.
Thus, modern browsers usually use about 6 different TCP connections, which throws off all of the optimizations TCP does.
SPDY multiplexes multiple streams into one connection so things can be served in parallel.
Thus if you're hitting the disk retrieving one object, you can still send the next one out of the cache.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30081720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080272</id>
	<title>Why is Google misunderstanding HTTP?</title>
	<author>koinu</author>
	<datestamp>1258024920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't get it. Maybe someone should actually use Google there and lookup "REST" oder "RESTful" and see how the web was designed and SHOULD actually work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't get it .
Maybe someone should actually use Google there and lookup " REST " oder " RESTful " and see how the web was designed and SHOULD actually work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't get it.
Maybe someone should actually use Google there and lookup "REST" oder "RESTful" and see how the web was designed and SHOULD actually work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078434</id>
	<title>Re:Solving the wrong problem</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1258018620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CSS can make things shorter and faster if they just remember to link to it as a static file.</p><p>You can't cache something that changes, and anything, like CSS and Javascript, that's caught in the on-the-fly generation of dynamic and uncacheable text in spite of actually being static, is just going to clog up the tubes.</p><p>In fact, thanks to slashdot's no-edits-allowed policy, each comment itself is a static unchangeable snippet of text.  Why not cache those?</p><p>Sending only the stuff that changes is usually a good optimization no matter what you're doing.</p><p>CSS and javascript themselves aren't bad.  Failing to offlink and thus cacheable-ize them however, is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CSS can make things shorter and faster if they just remember to link to it as a static file.You ca n't cache something that changes , and anything , like CSS and Javascript , that 's caught in the on-the-fly generation of dynamic and uncacheable text in spite of actually being static , is just going to clog up the tubes.In fact , thanks to slashdot 's no-edits-allowed policy , each comment itself is a static unchangeable snippet of text .
Why not cache those ? Sending only the stuff that changes is usually a good optimization no matter what you 're doing.CSS and javascript themselves are n't bad .
Failing to offlink and thus cacheable-ize them however , is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CSS can make things shorter and faster if they just remember to link to it as a static file.You can't cache something that changes, and anything, like CSS and Javascript, that's caught in the on-the-fly generation of dynamic and uncacheable text in spite of actually being static, is just going to clog up the tubes.In fact, thanks to slashdot's no-edits-allowed policy, each comment itself is a static unchangeable snippet of text.
Why not cache those?Sending only the stuff that changes is usually a good optimization no matter what you're doing.CSS and javascript themselves aren't bad.
Failing to offlink and thus cacheable-ize them however, is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30086776</id>
	<title>Re:Oh that's wonderful</title>
	<author>GooberToo</author>
	<datestamp>1258127820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't this mean we'd all be using Google as a proxy for all internet traffic? That means they'd know about all of your traffic rather than just searches. I guess that means they'd know you want to see Goatse twice as fast without you having to search for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't this mean we 'd all be using Google as a proxy for all internet traffic ?
That means they 'd know about all of your traffic rather than just searches .
I guess that means they 'd know you want to see Goatse twice as fast without you having to search for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't this mean we'd all be using Google as a proxy for all internet traffic?
That means they'd know about all of your traffic rather than just searches.
I guess that means they'd know you want to see Goatse twice as fast without you having to search for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30091670</id>
	<title>Guaranteed Ad revenue</title>
	<author>snadrus</author>
	<datestamp>1258106100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They did it, here's a feature we won't want to live without, yet it guarantees them that Ads are delivered: Server Push.
Without it, you have round-trips for each page component. With it, forget adblock, even if you don't want to see the Ad, you downloaded it. <br>
Don't care about the download, you still want adblock? Not in Chrome. <br> <br>
Why are you compressing my jpegs, again?</htmltext>
<tokenext>They did it , here 's a feature we wo n't want to live without , yet it guarantees them that Ads are delivered : Server Push .
Without it , you have round-trips for each page component .
With it , forget adblock , even if you do n't want to see the Ad , you downloaded it .
Do n't care about the download , you still want adblock ?
Not in Chrome .
Why are you compressing my jpegs , again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They did it, here's a feature we won't want to live without, yet it guarantees them that Ads are delivered: Server Push.
Without it, you have round-trips for each page component.
With it, forget adblock, even if you don't want to see the Ad, you downloaded it.
Don't care about the download, you still want adblock?
Not in Chrome.
Why are you compressing my jpegs, again?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30082152</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot could use the help</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258034700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They turn on caching for everything but then spit out junk like</p><p> <a href="http://v9.lscache4.c.youtube.com/generate\_204?ip=0.0.0.0&amp;sparams=id\%2Cexpire\%2Cip\%2Cipbits\%2Citag\%2Calgorithm\%2Cburst\%2Cfactor&amp;fexp=903900\%2C903206&amp;algorithm=throttle-factor&amp;itag=34&amp;ipbits=0&amp;burst=40&amp;sver=3&amp;expire=1258081200&amp;key=yt1&amp;signature=8214C5787766320D138B1764BF009CF62A596FF9.D86886CFF40DB7F847246D653E9D3AA5B1D18610&amp;factor=1.25&amp;id=ccbfe79256f2b5b6" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://v9.lscache4.c.youtube.com/generate\_204?ip=0.0.0.0&amp;sparams=id\%2Cexpire\%2Cip\%2Cipbits\%2Citag\%2Calgorithm\%2Cburst\%2Cfactor&amp;fexp=903900\%2C903206&amp;algorithm=throttle-factor&amp;itag=34&amp;ipbits=0&amp;burst=40&amp;sver=3&amp;expire=1258081200&amp;key=yt1&amp;signature=8214C5787766320D138B1764BF009CF62A596FF9.D86886CFF40DB7F847246D653E9D3AA5B1D18610&amp;factor=1.25&amp;id=ccbfe79256f2b5b6</a> [youtube.com]</p> </div><p>As the name implies, generate\_204 always receives an HTTP 204 (No Content) response, and is used mainly for logging statistics, so there's nothing to cache there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They turn on caching for everything but then spit out junk like http : //v9.lscache4.c.youtube.com/generate \ _204 ? ip = 0.0.0.0&amp;sparams = id \ % 2Cexpire \ % 2Cip \ % 2Cipbits \ % 2Citag \ % 2Calgorithm \ % 2Cburst \ % 2Cfactor&amp;fexp = 903900 \ % 2C903206&amp;algorithm = throttle-factor&amp;itag = 34&amp;ipbits = 0&amp;burst = 40&amp;sver = 3&amp;expire = 1258081200&amp;key = yt1&amp;signature = 8214C5787766320D138B1764BF009CF62A596FF9.D86886CFF40DB7F847246D653E9D3AA5B1D18610&amp;factor = 1.25&amp;id = ccbfe79256f2b5b6 [ youtube.com ] As the name implies , generate \ _204 always receives an HTTP 204 ( No Content ) response , and is used mainly for logging statistics , so there 's nothing to cache there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They turn on caching for everything but then spit out junk like http://v9.lscache4.c.youtube.com/generate\_204?ip=0.0.0.0&amp;sparams=id\%2Cexpire\%2Cip\%2Cipbits\%2Citag\%2Calgorithm\%2Cburst\%2Cfactor&amp;fexp=903900\%2C903206&amp;algorithm=throttle-factor&amp;itag=34&amp;ipbits=0&amp;burst=40&amp;sver=3&amp;expire=1258081200&amp;key=yt1&amp;signature=8214C5787766320D138B1764BF009CF62A596FF9.D86886CFF40DB7F847246D653E9D3AA5B1D18610&amp;factor=1.25&amp;id=ccbfe79256f2b5b6 [youtube.com] As the name implies, generate\_204 always receives an HTTP 204 (No Content) response, and is used mainly for logging statistics, so there's nothing to cache there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078858</id>
	<title>Cool stuff</title>
	<author>gozu</author>
	<datestamp>1258020180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SPDY sounds like a really cool open source project if you ask me. Sure, it's not as cool as replacing TCP and HTTP completely but I bet I'm not the only one who's checking out the white paper and the implementation of the algorithms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SPDY sounds like a really cool open source project if you ask me .
Sure , it 's not as cool as replacing TCP and HTTP completely but I bet I 'm not the only one who 's checking out the white paper and the implementation of the algorithms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SPDY sounds like a really cool open source project if you ask me.
Sure, it's not as cool as replacing TCP and HTTP completely but I bet I'm not the only one who's checking out the white paper and the implementation of the algorithms.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080226</id>
	<title>Re:Solving the wrong problem</title>
	<author>Pulzar</author>
	<datestamp>1258024740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So how do you explain, then, that the top 300 sites loaded in half the time on average? It certainly seems like it's solving one of the major problems. There are others, no doubt, but this is by no means a "wrong" one to solve.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So how do you explain , then , that the top 300 sites loaded in half the time on average ?
It certainly seems like it 's solving one of the major problems .
There are others , no doubt , but this is by no means a " wrong " one to solve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So how do you explain, then, that the top 300 sites loaded in half the time on average?
It certainly seems like it's solving one of the major problems.
There are others, no doubt, but this is by no means a "wrong" one to solve.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30082006</id>
	<title>Re:and faster still..</title>
	<author>cain</author>
	<datestamp>1258033800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And it's 20.01x faster when you remove unneeded apostrophe's.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And it 's 20.01x faster when you remove unneeded apostrophe 's .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it's 20.01x faster when you remove unneeded apostrophe's.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078204</id>
	<title>Re:How about telling Analytics to take a hike?</title>
	<author>gbarules2999</author>
	<datestamp>1258017660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I want my old Internet back. And a pony.</p></div><p>If Slashdot does OMG Ponies again will that satisfy your wants and needs?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I want my old Internet back .
And a pony.If Slashdot does OMG Ponies again will that satisfy your wants and needs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want my old Internet back.
And a pony.If Slashdot does OMG Ponies again will that satisfy your wants and needs?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080642</id>
	<title>Re:Solving the wrong problem</title>
	<author>nilbog</author>
	<datestamp>1258026420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So how do you explain the 200\% improvement in download speeds on all the sites they tested?  I agree that there are lots of different bottlenecks you can focus on, but you can't argue with results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So how do you explain the 200 \ % improvement in download speeds on all the sites they tested ?
I agree that there are lots of different bottlenecks you can focus on , but you ca n't argue with results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So how do you explain the 200\% improvement in download speeds on all the sites they tested?
I agree that there are lots of different bottlenecks you can focus on, but you can't argue with results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078200</id>
	<title>Re:How about telling Analytics to take a hike?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258017660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Remember when a 768kbps DSL line was whizzo fast?</p></div><p>I remember the good ol' days.</p><p>Oh yea, and get off my lawn!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember when a 768kbps DSL line was whizzo fast ? I remember the good ol ' days.Oh yea , and get off my lawn !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember when a 768kbps DSL line was whizzo fast?I remember the good ol' days.Oh yea, and get off my lawn!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079410</id>
	<title>Or just use Opera Turbo</title>
	<author>TeXMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1258022160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>(which is basically proxying from <a href="http://my.opera.com/chooseopera/blog/2009/03/13/please-welcome-opera-turbo" title="opera.com">dedicated Opera servers</a> [opera.com])</htmltext>
<tokenext>( which is basically proxying from dedicated Opera servers [ opera.com ] )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(which is basically proxying from dedicated Opera servers [opera.com])</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078536</id>
	<title>Re:While we're at it ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258018980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"For the semantics, let's introduce an extensible language"</p><p>Let me remind you that XHTML 2 failed due to this thing. Introduce a dozen of new libraries by random parties every month and you have a broken web.</p><p>"have a library to implement the look of your website"<br>And you should really stidy a bit more about CSS</p><p>The thing is, that the web is NOT for programmers only, hypertext languages have to be stupid, so that humans can read them, computers need not binaries to understand them, they can parse text since... forever?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" For the semantics , let 's introduce an extensible language " Let me remind you that XHTML 2 failed due to this thing .
Introduce a dozen of new libraries by random parties every month and you have a broken web .
" have a library to implement the look of your website " And you should really stidy a bit more about CSSThe thing is , that the web is NOT for programmers only , hypertext languages have to be stupid , so that humans can read them , computers need not binaries to understand them , they can parse text since... forever ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"For the semantics, let's introduce an extensible language"Let me remind you that XHTML 2 failed due to this thing.
Introduce a dozen of new libraries by random parties every month and you have a broken web.
"have a library to implement the look of your website"And you should really stidy a bit more about CSSThe thing is, that the web is NOT for programmers only, hypertext languages have to be stupid, so that humans can read them, computers need not binaries to understand them, they can parse text since... forever?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30081720</id>
	<title>Re:Before you click!</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1258031940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> but mainly what it does is it lets a lot of requests use the same connection</p></div><p>You mean like HTTP/1.1 does?</p><p><div class="quote"><p> and does compression on the HTTP headers</p></div><p>Are the headers really that big?  You can compress the content with gzip automatically - I'm surprised that header compression makes a difference.  Generally, the header is a small fraction of the size of the response.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but mainly what it does is it lets a lot of requests use the same connectionYou mean like HTTP/1.1 does ?
and does compression on the HTTP headersAre the headers really that big ?
You can compress the content with gzip automatically - I 'm surprised that header compression makes a difference .
Generally , the header is a small fraction of the size of the response .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> but mainly what it does is it lets a lot of requests use the same connectionYou mean like HTTP/1.1 does?
and does compression on the HTTP headersAre the headers really that big?
You can compress the content with gzip automatically - I'm surprised that header compression makes a difference.
Generally, the header is a small fraction of the size of the response.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30082116</id>
	<title>Re:Solving the wrong problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258034460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Then there are the sites that load massive amounts of canned CSS and Javascript.  (Remember how CSS was supposed to make web pages shorter and faster to load? NOT.)</p></div><p>CSS is not intended to make \_a\_ web page shorter and faster to load.  It should make a \_set\_ of related pages individually shorter and faster to load (after the first one) because the first one already loaded the shared resource, allowing the browser to cache and reuse it.  It should also make the job of site-wide maintenance and consistency easier.</p><p>In some cases the fails in practice due to poor coding or server configuration, but acceleration of single pages is not a primary goal of CSS.  Just sayin'</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then there are the sites that load massive amounts of canned CSS and Javascript .
( Remember how CSS was supposed to make web pages shorter and faster to load ?
NOT. ) CSS is not intended to make \ _a \ _ web page shorter and faster to load .
It should make a \ _set \ _ of related pages individually shorter and faster to load ( after the first one ) because the first one already loaded the shared resource , allowing the browser to cache and reuse it .
It should also make the job of site-wide maintenance and consistency easier.In some cases the fails in practice due to poor coding or server configuration , but acceleration of single pages is not a primary goal of CSS .
Just sayin '</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then there are the sites that load massive amounts of canned CSS and Javascript.
(Remember how CSS was supposed to make web pages shorter and faster to load?
NOT.)CSS is not intended to make \_a\_ web page shorter and faster to load.
It should make a \_set\_ of related pages individually shorter and faster to load (after the first one) because the first one already loaded the shared resource, allowing the browser to cache and reuse it.
It should also make the job of site-wide maintenance and consistency easier.In some cases the fails in practice due to poor coding or server configuration, but acceleration of single pages is not a primary goal of CSS.
Just sayin'
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078294</id>
	<title>Re:Solving the wrong problem</title>
	<author>Yoozer</author>
	<datestamp>1258018020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Remember how CSS was supposed to make web pages shorter and faster to load? NOT.)</p></div> </blockquote><p>

What, you think after the first load that CSS file isn't cached in any way? Inline styles slow down every time, CSS just the first. CSS was supposed to make styling elements not completely braindead. You want to change the link colors with inline styles from red to blue? With inline styles - enjoy your grepping. You're bound to forget some of 'm, too. <br> <br>

Bitching about ad loading times and huge JS libraries? Sure, go ahead. CSS? No, that just makes you look silly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember how CSS was supposed to make web pages shorter and faster to load ?
NOT. ) What , you think after the first load that CSS file is n't cached in any way ?
Inline styles slow down every time , CSS just the first .
CSS was supposed to make styling elements not completely braindead .
You want to change the link colors with inline styles from red to blue ?
With inline styles - enjoy your grepping .
You 're bound to forget some of 'm , too .
Bitching about ad loading times and huge JS libraries ?
Sure , go ahead .
CSS ? No , that just makes you look silly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember how CSS was supposed to make web pages shorter and faster to load?
NOT.) 

What, you think after the first load that CSS file isn't cached in any way?
Inline styles slow down every time, CSS just the first.
CSS was supposed to make styling elements not completely braindead.
You want to change the link colors with inline styles from red to blue?
With inline styles - enjoy your grepping.
You're bound to forget some of 'm, too.
Bitching about ad loading times and huge JS libraries?
Sure, go ahead.
CSS? No, that just makes you look silly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30082778</id>
	<title>Re:A novel idea</title>
	<author>deek</author>
	<datestamp>1258040520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You, sir, would never make a good hacker.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You , sir , would never make a good hacker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You, sir, would never make a good hacker.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079944</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, right... but WHY?!?</title>
	<author>grmoc</author>
	<datestamp>1258023780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We had a different name before. Alas, many of the better names are already taken...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We had a different name before .
Alas , many of the better names are already taken.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We had a different name before.
Alas, many of the better names are already taken...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078874</id>
	<title>SSL for everything?</title>
	<author>colfer</author>
	<datestamp>1258020240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It says the goal is</p><blockquote><div><p>To make SSL the underlying transport protocol, for better security and compatibility with existing network infrastructure. Although SSL does introduce a latency penalty, we believe that the long-term future of the web depends on a secure network connection. In addition, the use of SSL is necessary to ensure that communication across existing proxies is not broken.</p></div></blockquote><p>But the testing is on both TCP and SSL/TCP, since:</p><blockquote><div><p>SSL poses other latency and deployment challenges. Among these are: the additional RTTs for the SSL handshake; encryption; difficulty of caching for some proxies. We need to do more SSL tuning.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It says the goal isTo make SSL the underlying transport protocol , for better security and compatibility with existing network infrastructure .
Although SSL does introduce a latency penalty , we believe that the long-term future of the web depends on a secure network connection .
In addition , the use of SSL is necessary to ensure that communication across existing proxies is not broken.But the testing is on both TCP and SSL/TCP , since : SSL poses other latency and deployment challenges .
Among these are : the additional RTTs for the SSL handshake ; encryption ; difficulty of caching for some proxies .
We need to do more SSL tuning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It says the goal isTo make SSL the underlying transport protocol, for better security and compatibility with existing network infrastructure.
Although SSL does introduce a latency penalty, we believe that the long-term future of the web depends on a secure network connection.
In addition, the use of SSL is necessary to ensure that communication across existing proxies is not broken.But the testing is on both TCP and SSL/TCP, since:SSL poses other latency and deployment challenges.
Among these are: the additional RTTs for the SSL handshake; encryption; difficulty of caching for some proxies.
We need to do more SSL tuning.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30100376</id>
	<title>Re:Solving the wrong problem</title>
	<author>badkarmadayaccount</author>
	<datestamp>1258190160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh, where art thou, Javascript Style Sheets?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , where art thou , Javascript Style Sheets ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, where art thou, Javascript Style Sheets?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078952</id>
	<title>Re:Before you click!</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1258020540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;Sounds like those "dialup accelerators" from back in the '90s<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Hey I still use one of those you insensitive clod!  It's called Netscape Web Accelerator, and it does more than just prefetch requests - it also compresses all text and images to about 10\% original size.  How else would I watch 90210 streaming videos over my phoneline?</p><p>Why I can almost see what looks like a bikini.  Man Kelly is hot...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; Sounds like those " dialup accelerators " from back in the '90s ...Hey I still use one of those you insensitive clod !
It 's called Netscape Web Accelerator , and it does more than just prefetch requests - it also compresses all text and images to about 10 \ % original size .
How else would I watch 90210 streaming videos over my phoneline ? Why I can almost see what looks like a bikini .
Man Kelly is hot... ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;Sounds like those "dialup accelerators" from back in the '90s ...Hey I still use one of those you insensitive clod!
It's called Netscape Web Accelerator, and it does more than just prefetch requests - it also compresses all text and images to about 10\% original size.
How else would I watch 90210 streaming videos over my phoneline?Why I can almost see what looks like a bikini.
Man Kelly is hot... ;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078898</id>
	<title>How about downsides...</title>
	<author>unix1</author>
	<datestamp>1258020360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not all rosy as the short documentation page explains. While they are trying to maximize throughput and minimize latency, they are hurting other areas. 2 obvious downsides I see are:</p><p>1. Server would now have to keep holding the connection open to the client throughout the client's session, and also keep the associated resources in memory. While this may not be a problem for Google and their seemingly limitless processing powers, a Joe Webmaster will see their web server load average increase significantly. HTTP servers usually give you control over this with the HTTP keep-alive time and max connections/children settings. If the server is now required to keep the connections open it would spell more hardware for many/most websites;</p><p>2. Requiring compression seems silly to me. This would increase the processing power required on the web server (see above), and also on the client - think underpowered portable devices. It needs to stay optional - if the client and server both play and prefer compression, then they should do it; if not, then let them be; also keeping in mind that all images, video and other multimedia are already compressed - so adding compression to these items would increase the server/client load \_and\_ increase payload.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not all rosy as the short documentation page explains .
While they are trying to maximize throughput and minimize latency , they are hurting other areas .
2 obvious downsides I see are : 1 .
Server would now have to keep holding the connection open to the client throughout the client 's session , and also keep the associated resources in memory .
While this may not be a problem for Google and their seemingly limitless processing powers , a Joe Webmaster will see their web server load average increase significantly .
HTTP servers usually give you control over this with the HTTP keep-alive time and max connections/children settings .
If the server is now required to keep the connections open it would spell more hardware for many/most websites ; 2 .
Requiring compression seems silly to me .
This would increase the processing power required on the web server ( see above ) , and also on the client - think underpowered portable devices .
It needs to stay optional - if the client and server both play and prefer compression , then they should do it ; if not , then let them be ; also keeping in mind that all images , video and other multimedia are already compressed - so adding compression to these items would increase the server/client load \ _and \ _ increase payload .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not all rosy as the short documentation page explains.
While they are trying to maximize throughput and minimize latency, they are hurting other areas.
2 obvious downsides I see are:1.
Server would now have to keep holding the connection open to the client throughout the client's session, and also keep the associated resources in memory.
While this may not be a problem for Google and their seemingly limitless processing powers, a Joe Webmaster will see their web server load average increase significantly.
HTTP servers usually give you control over this with the HTTP keep-alive time and max connections/children settings.
If the server is now required to keep the connections open it would spell more hardware for many/most websites;2.
Requiring compression seems silly to me.
This would increase the processing power required on the web server (see above), and also on the client - think underpowered portable devices.
It needs to stay optional - if the client and server both play and prefer compression, then they should do it; if not, then let them be; also keeping in mind that all images, video and other multimedia are already compressed - so adding compression to these items would increase the server/client load \_and\_ increase payload.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30082600</id>
	<title>HTTP isn't the issue...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258038840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HTTP speed really isn't the issue. It's JavaScript performance and the worst culprit are ad servers. Try turning off JavaScript on any major site and it's 10x faster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HTTP speed really is n't the issue .
It 's JavaScript performance and the worst culprit are ad servers .
Try turning off JavaScript on any major site and it 's 10x faster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HTTP speed really isn't the issue.
It's JavaScript performance and the worst culprit are ad servers.
Try turning off JavaScript on any major site and it's 10x faster.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079544</id>
	<title>Re:How about telling Analytics to take a hike?</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1258022520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A bit off topic but now I know why NoScript prevents Myspace form loading altogether...because I have analytics blocked and, looking at the HTML source code now, I can see why nothing else is loading afterwards...
<br> <br>
And who says slashdot doesn't still have some useful/helpful comments on it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>A bit off topic but now I know why NoScript prevents Myspace form loading altogether...because I have analytics blocked and , looking at the HTML source code now , I can see why nothing else is loading afterwards.. . And who says slashdot does n't still have some useful/helpful comments on it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A bit off topic but now I know why NoScript prevents Myspace form loading altogether...because I have analytics blocked and, looking at the HTML source code now, I can see why nothing else is loading afterwards...
 
And who says slashdot doesn't still have some useful/helpful comments on it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079184</id>
	<title>Re:Cloud gaming</title>
	<author>ickleberry</author>
	<datestamp>1258021380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>anyone who uses HTTP as the protocol for a game server should be shot. UDP is where its at man</htmltext>
<tokenext>anyone who uses HTTP as the protocol for a game server should be shot .
UDP is where its at man</tokentext>
<sentencetext>anyone who uses HTTP as the protocol for a game server should be shot.
UDP is where its at man</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078166</id>
	<title>Re:Solving the wrong problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258017480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Then there are the sites that load massive amounts of canned CSS and Javascript. (Remember how CSS was supposed to make web pages shorter and faster to load? NOT.)</p></div></blockquote><p>I definitely agree on this one (who wouldn't). I'd say they clearly improve the look and feel of websites, but the simple addition of making them separate files requires a separation GET, which is far slower than consolidating. Also, a lot of sites do not compress these files (both in-transit, and simply removing whitespace from their web server versions--it's fine to keep it for your personal modification, but a compression tool should always be used on those scripts/files before putting them out for the rest of the internet to download. It has a dramatic affect on speed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then there are the sites that load massive amounts of canned CSS and Javascript .
( Remember how CSS was supposed to make web pages shorter and faster to load ?
NOT. ) I definitely agree on this one ( who would n't ) .
I 'd say they clearly improve the look and feel of websites , but the simple addition of making them separate files requires a separation GET , which is far slower than consolidating .
Also , a lot of sites do not compress these files ( both in-transit , and simply removing whitespace from their web server versions--it 's fine to keep it for your personal modification , but a compression tool should always be used on those scripts/files before putting them out for the rest of the internet to download .
It has a dramatic affect on speed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then there are the sites that load massive amounts of canned CSS and Javascript.
(Remember how CSS was supposed to make web pages shorter and faster to load?
NOT.)I definitely agree on this one (who wouldn't).
I'd say they clearly improve the look and feel of websites, but the simple addition of making them separate files requires a separation GET, which is far slower than consolidating.
Also, a lot of sites do not compress these files (both in-transit, and simply removing whitespace from their web server versions--it's fine to keep it for your personal modification, but a compression tool should always be used on those scripts/files before putting them out for the rest of the internet to download.
It has a dramatic affect on speed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078242</id>
	<title>Re:Solving the wrong problem</title>
	<author>cream wobbly</author>
	<datestamp>1258017840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How am I going to wipe up this mess now? And<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... <em>oh, my shirt!</em></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How am I going to wipe up this mess now ?
And ... oh , my shirt !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How am I going to wipe up this mess now?
And ... oh, my shirt!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079294</id>
	<title>Re:Solving the wrong problem</title>
	<author>Temporal</author>
	<datestamp>1258021740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Loading the base page just isn't the problem.</p></div></blockquote><p>Did you actually read the article?  SPDY seems to be *all about* loading multiple resources.  It looks like SPDY reduces the number of round trips required by allowing the server to push files to the client which it knows the client will need, and allows transfers to be multiplexed rather than forcing everything into a FIFO pipeline as HTTP does.  And the prioritization features presumably allow the client to get the resources required to start rendering the page (like the CSS) before things that can be filled in later (images).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Loading the base page just is n't the problem.Did you actually read the article ?
SPDY seems to be * all about * loading multiple resources .
It looks like SPDY reduces the number of round trips required by allowing the server to push files to the client which it knows the client will need , and allows transfers to be multiplexed rather than forcing everything into a FIFO pipeline as HTTP does .
And the prioritization features presumably allow the client to get the resources required to start rendering the page ( like the CSS ) before things that can be filled in later ( images ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Loading the base page just isn't the problem.Did you actually read the article?
SPDY seems to be *all about* loading multiple resources.
It looks like SPDY reduces the number of round trips required by allowing the server to push files to the client which it knows the client will need, and allows transfers to be multiplexed rather than forcing everything into a FIFO pipeline as HTTP does.
And the prioritization features presumably allow the client to get the resources required to start rendering the page (like the CSS) before things that can be filled in later (images).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30088068</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot could use the help</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258133940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I block all things google on my system it goes faster.</p><p>Nice of them to try to fix a problem they cause.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I block all things google on my system it goes faster.Nice of them to try to fix a problem they cause .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I block all things google on my system it goes faster.Nice of them to try to fix a problem they cause.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079396</id>
	<title>err...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258022100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>doesn't it worry anyone that someone who is writing something sitting in layers 4-7 (by the sounds of it|) thinks that TCP is an application layer protocol?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>does n't it worry anyone that someone who is writing something sitting in layers 4-7 ( by the sounds of it | ) thinks that TCP is an application layer protocol ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>doesn't it worry anyone that someone who is writing something sitting in layers 4-7 (by the sounds of it|) thinks that TCP is an application layer protocol?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080556</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot could use the help</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258026060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you've mistaken the original poster for someone that actually cares about what you think.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 've mistaken the original poster for someone that actually cares about what you think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you've mistaken the original poster for someone that actually cares about what you think.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30084844</id>
	<title>Please brake IE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258109940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>can we please introduce something to brake IE, they've been braking the web for so long!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>can we please introduce something to brake IE , they 've been braking the web for so long !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>can we please introduce something to brake IE, they've been braking the web for so long!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079982</id>
	<title>or distribute jquery and YUI with every browser?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258023900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and a few more in the download or as plugins, in the meantime?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and a few more in the download or as plugins , in the meantime ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and a few more in the download or as plugins, in the meantime?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079232</id>
	<title>Problems...</title>
	<author>scorp1us</author>
	<datestamp>1258021500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i># To make SSL the underlying transport protocol, for better security and compatibility with existing network infrastructure. Although SSL does introduce a latency penalty, we believe that the long-term future of the web depends on a secure network connection. In addition, the use of SSL is necessary to ensure that communication across existing proxies is not broken.  </i></p><p>The problem for that is now everything is encypted. If it has multiple channels, let one be plaintext of insecure items,a nd one cyphered for encrypted ones</p><p><i><br># To enable the server to initiate communications with the client and push data to the client whenever possible.</i></p><p>Horrible idea because now popup and ad blockers don't work. Sure they might not show it, but the server has already sent it to you and eaten up your bandwidth. What are your options? Send a block-list during negotiation? Not likely, and still might not be honored. We need to keep the client in control. What should be done is the server send the component list, and then the client can return the accepted list back to the server to have it put into the download stream. While this is the correct operation, the problem with this is it increases latency.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext># To make SSL the underlying transport protocol , for better security and compatibility with existing network infrastructure .
Although SSL does introduce a latency penalty , we believe that the long-term future of the web depends on a secure network connection .
In addition , the use of SSL is necessary to ensure that communication across existing proxies is not broken .
The problem for that is now everything is encypted .
If it has multiple channels , let one be plaintext of insecure items,a nd one cyphered for encrypted ones # To enable the server to initiate communications with the client and push data to the client whenever possible.Horrible idea because now popup and ad blockers do n't work .
Sure they might not show it , but the server has already sent it to you and eaten up your bandwidth .
What are your options ?
Send a block-list during negotiation ?
Not likely , and still might not be honored .
We need to keep the client in control .
What should be done is the server send the component list , and then the client can return the accepted list back to the server to have it put into the download stream .
While this is the correct operation , the problem with this is it increases latency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext># To make SSL the underlying transport protocol, for better security and compatibility with existing network infrastructure.
Although SSL does introduce a latency penalty, we believe that the long-term future of the web depends on a secure network connection.
In addition, the use of SSL is necessary to ensure that communication across existing proxies is not broken.
The problem for that is now everything is encypted.
If it has multiple channels, let one be plaintext of insecure items,a nd one cyphered for encrypted ones# To enable the server to initiate communications with the client and push data to the client whenever possible.Horrible idea because now popup and ad blockers don't work.
Sure they might not show it, but the server has already sent it to you and eaten up your bandwidth.
What are your options?
Send a block-list during negotiation?
Not likely, and still might not be honored.
We need to keep the client in control.
What should be done is the server send the component list, and then the client can return the accepted list back to the server to have it put into the download stream.
While this is the correct operation, the problem with this is it increases latency.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078038</id>
	<title>Solving the wrong problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258017000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The problem isn't pushing the bits across the wire.  Major sites that load slowly today (like Slashdot) typically do so because they have advertising code that blocks page display until the ad loads.  The ad servers are the bottleneck. Look at the lower left of the Mozilla window and watch the "Waiting for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..." messages.
</p><p>
Even if you're blocking ad images, there's still the delay while successive "document.write" operations take place.
</p><p>
Then there are the sites that load massive amounts of canned CSS and Javascript.  (Remember how CSS was supposed to make web pages shorter and faster to load? NOT.)
</p><p>
Then there are the sites that load a skeletal page which then makes multiple requests for XML for the actual content.
</p><p>
Loading the base page just isn't the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is n't pushing the bits across the wire .
Major sites that load slowly today ( like Slashdot ) typically do so because they have advertising code that blocks page display until the ad loads .
The ad servers are the bottleneck .
Look at the lower left of the Mozilla window and watch the " Waiting for ... " messages .
Even if you 're blocking ad images , there 's still the delay while successive " document.write " operations take place .
Then there are the sites that load massive amounts of canned CSS and Javascript .
( Remember how CSS was supposed to make web pages shorter and faster to load ?
NOT. ) Then there are the sites that load a skeletal page which then makes multiple requests for XML for the actual content .
Loading the base page just is n't the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The problem isn't pushing the bits across the wire.
Major sites that load slowly today (like Slashdot) typically do so because they have advertising code that blocks page display until the ad loads.
The ad servers are the bottleneck.
Look at the lower left of the Mozilla window and watch the "Waiting for ..." messages.
Even if you're blocking ad images, there's still the delay while successive "document.write" operations take place.
Then there are the sites that load massive amounts of canned CSS and Javascript.
(Remember how CSS was supposed to make web pages shorter and faster to load?
NOT.)

Then there are the sites that load a skeletal page which then makes multiple requests for XML for the actual content.
Loading the base page just isn't the problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080694</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot could use the help</title>
	<author>ProfessionalCookie</author>
	<datestamp>1258026660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually how about local persistent browser cross site javascript/css caches that validate based on signature?  Something like<p>
<tt>&lt;script type="text/javascript" src="/scripts/jquery-min-1.3.3.js?v=132" local="com.jquery.min.133.js" sig="eaa41fbd734596533e98e557eae39b8b"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/&gt;</tt> </p><p>
The browser comes with copies of commonly used libraries or has access to a repository or downloads them from anywhere and validates sigs, using the same code where sigs match.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually how about local persistent browser cross site javascript/css caches that validate based on signature ?
Something like / &gt; The browser comes with copies of commonly used libraries or has access to a repository or downloads them from anywhere and validates sigs , using the same code where sigs match .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually how about local persistent browser cross site javascript/css caches that validate based on signature?
Something like
 /&gt; 
The browser comes with copies of commonly used libraries or has access to a repository or downloads them from anywhere and validates sigs, using the same code where sigs match.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078934</id>
	<title>Re:How about telling Analytics to take a hike?</title>
	<author>ejtttje</author>
	<datestamp>1258020480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sorry, are we on your grass?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , are we on your grass ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, are we on your grass?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078170</id>
	<title>Re:How about telling Analytics to take a hike?</title>
	<author>thestudio\_bob</author>
	<datestamp>1258017480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I want my old Internet back. And a pony.</p></div></blockquote><p>You forgot to yell at the kids to get off your internet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I want my old Internet back .
And a pony.You forgot to yell at the kids to get off your internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want my old Internet back.
And a pony.You forgot to yell at the kids to get off your internet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078612</id>
	<title>Re:Just turn off image loading (but not with SPDY?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258019220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was thinking about one of the "features" of SPDY<br>"To enable the server to initiate communications with the client and push data to the client whenever possible"</p><p>Would that mean a server can force the images of a html-page upon a client?<br>If so, the ignoring images will no longer help to speed up the connection.</p><p>Also if the pictures (or flash content) are for advertisements,<br>then it is not so easy anymore to simply block it with today's adblockers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was thinking about one of the " features " of SPDY " To enable the server to initiate communications with the client and push data to the client whenever possible " Would that mean a server can force the images of a html-page upon a client ? If so , the ignoring images will no longer help to speed up the connection.Also if the pictures ( or flash content ) are for advertisements,then it is not so easy anymore to simply block it with today 's adblockers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was thinking about one of the "features" of SPDY"To enable the server to initiate communications with the client and push data to the client whenever possible"Would that mean a server can force the images of a html-page upon a client?If so, the ignoring images will no longer help to speed up the connection.Also if the pictures (or flash content) are for advertisements,then it is not so easy anymore to simply block it with today's adblockers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080414</id>
	<title>Re:and faster still..</title>
	<author>ProfessionalCookie</author>
	<datestamp>1258025520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is there any commonly useful Java applets left out there.  I disabled Java years ago!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there any commonly useful Java applets left out there .
I disabled Java years ago !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there any commonly useful Java applets left out there.
I disabled Java years ago!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30091058</id>
	<title>Re:A novel idea</title>
	<author>snadrus</author>
	<datestamp>1258103160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Go on, what's the right tool for millions of people around the world on at-least 5 incompatible platforms to interact with near-realtime performance in ways I select using whatever interface &amp; paradigm my next site will offer?
<br> <br>
If your answer is: 5 separate programs, each installed differently across different platforms, each inevitably having their own learning curve that doesn't benefit those migrating to a different platform, then pass. <br> <br>Companies don't want to spend that much hassle on IT when they know that standards save time. There's no more prevalent standard for visual interaction.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Go on , what 's the right tool for millions of people around the world on at-least 5 incompatible platforms to interact with near-realtime performance in ways I select using whatever interface &amp; paradigm my next site will offer ?
If your answer is : 5 separate programs , each installed differently across different platforms , each inevitably having their own learning curve that does n't benefit those migrating to a different platform , then pass .
Companies do n't want to spend that much hassle on IT when they know that standards save time .
There 's no more prevalent standard for visual interaction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go on, what's the right tool for millions of people around the world on at-least 5 incompatible platforms to interact with near-realtime performance in ways I select using whatever interface &amp; paradigm my next site will offer?
If your answer is: 5 separate programs, each installed differently across different platforms, each inevitably having their own learning curve that doesn't benefit those migrating to a different platform, then pass.
Companies don't want to spend that much hassle on IT when they know that standards save time.
There's no more prevalent standard for visual interaction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078058</id>
	<title>Nawlinwiki is a fucking bastard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258017060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So is PeterSymonds, J.delanoy, Pmdrive1061, Pathoschild and Tnxman301</p><p>Vandalize Wikipedia today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So is PeterSymonds , J.delanoy , Pmdrive1061 , Pathoschild and Tnxman301Vandalize Wikipedia today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So is PeterSymonds, J.delanoy, Pmdrive1061, Pathoschild and Tnxman301Vandalize Wikipedia today.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079022</id>
	<title>HTTP-NG Revisited (ten years later!)</title>
	<author>kriegsman</author>
	<datestamp>1258020780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>HTTP-NG ( <a href="http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP-NG/" title="w3.org">http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP-NG/</a> [w3.org] ) was researched, designed, and even, yes, implemented to solve the same problems that Google's "new" SPDY is attacking -- in 1999, ten years ago.
<p>The good news is that SPDY seems to build on the SMUX ( <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-mux" title="w3.org">http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-mux</a> [w3.org] ) and MUX protocols that were designed as part of the HTTP-NG effort, so at least we're not reinventing the wheel.  Now we have to decide what color to paint it.

</p><p>Next up: immediate support in FireFox, WebKit, and Apache -- and deafening silence from IE and IIS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HTTP-NG ( http : //www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP-NG/ [ w3.org ] ) was researched , designed , and even , yes , implemented to solve the same problems that Google 's " new " SPDY is attacking -- in 1999 , ten years ago .
The good news is that SPDY seems to build on the SMUX ( http : //www.w3.org/TR/WD-mux [ w3.org ] ) and MUX protocols that were designed as part of the HTTP-NG effort , so at least we 're not reinventing the wheel .
Now we have to decide what color to paint it .
Next up : immediate support in FireFox , WebKit , and Apache -- and deafening silence from IE and IIS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HTTP-NG ( http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP-NG/ [w3.org] ) was researched, designed, and even, yes, implemented to solve the same problems that Google's "new" SPDY is attacking -- in 1999, ten years ago.
The good news is that SPDY seems to build on the SMUX ( http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-mux [w3.org] ) and MUX protocols that were designed as part of the HTTP-NG effort, so at least we're not reinventing the wheel.
Now we have to decide what color to paint it.
Next up: immediate support in FireFox, WebKit, and Apache -- and deafening silence from IE and IIS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078818</id>
	<title>Re:While we're at it ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258020000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>somewhat like this failure</p><p>www.tin-tags.org</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>somewhat like this failurewww.tin-tags.org</tokentext>
<sentencetext>somewhat like this failurewww.tin-tags.org</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078556</id>
	<title>Re:How about telling Analytics to take a hike?</title>
	<author>value\_added</author>
	<datestamp>1258019040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I want my old Internet back. And a pony.</i></p><p>LOL.  I'd suggest disabling javascript and calling it a day.</p><p>Alternatively, use a text-based browser.  If the webpage has any content worth reading, then a simple lynx -dump in 99\% of cases will give you what you want, with the added bonus of re-formatting those mile-wide lines into something readable.</p><p>On the other hand, I suspect most people don't want the "old internet".  What was once communicated on usenet or email in a few simple lines, for example, now increasingly appears in the form of a complex website that displays giant graphic-laden pages, replete with bad formatting and full of extraneous rubbish.  And people like it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I want my old Internet back .
And a pony.LOL .
I 'd suggest disabling javascript and calling it a day.Alternatively , use a text-based browser .
If the webpage has any content worth reading , then a simple lynx -dump in 99 \ % of cases will give you what you want , with the added bonus of re-formatting those mile-wide lines into something readable.On the other hand , I suspect most people do n't want the " old internet " .
What was once communicated on usenet or email in a few simple lines , for example , now increasingly appears in the form of a complex website that displays giant graphic-laden pages , replete with bad formatting and full of extraneous rubbish .
And people like it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want my old Internet back.
And a pony.LOL.
I'd suggest disabling javascript and calling it a day.Alternatively, use a text-based browser.
If the webpage has any content worth reading, then a simple lynx -dump in 99\% of cases will give you what you want, with the added bonus of re-formatting those mile-wide lines into something readable.On the other hand, I suspect most people don't want the "old internet".
What was once communicated on usenet or email in a few simple lines, for example, now increasingly appears in the form of a complex website that displays giant graphic-laden pages, replete with bad formatting and full of extraneous rubbish.
And people like it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30083760</id>
	<title>Worry?</title>
	<author>anarche</author>
	<datestamp>1258050840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>is no one else worried about servers with extended open connections pushing data to the client <i>without the client asking for it?</i>. Sure its encrypted, but a decent MitM attack leaves the server wide open and the client expecting unwanted data...</htmltext>
<tokenext>is no one else worried about servers with extended open connections pushing data to the client without the client asking for it ? .
Sure its encrypted , but a decent MitM attack leaves the server wide open and the client expecting unwanted data.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is no one else worried about servers with extended open connections pushing data to the client without the client asking for it?.
Sure its encrypted, but a decent MitM attack leaves the server wide open and the client expecting unwanted data...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079218</id>
	<title>"we've open sourced the code"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258021500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>we need some stupid idealistic programmer to do the work we dont want [to do, to spend on, etc]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we need some stupid idealistic programmer to do the work we dont want [ to do , to spend on , etc ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we need some stupid idealistic programmer to do the work we dont want [to do, to spend on, etc]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30081750</id>
	<title>Re:While we're at it ...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1258032060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uuum, what do you think the WhatWG, and the W3C work on, with (X)HTML 5 and CSS3?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>But what are you going to do, when the killer argument "that's too hard for our most totally retarded end of the target group" is thrown at you?</p><p>We could have this already, if not for those people who think XHTML is "too hard". I mean WTF? Maybe for those wannabe ex-cab-driver "developers". I wish I could force them to learn Haskell until their head explodes. ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uuum , what do you think the WhatWG , and the W3C work on , with ( X ) HTML 5 and CSS3 ?
: ) But what are you going to do , when the killer argument " that 's too hard for our most totally retarded end of the target group " is thrown at you ? We could have this already , if not for those people who think XHTML is " too hard " .
I mean WTF ?
Maybe for those wannabe ex-cab-driver " developers " .
I wish I could force them to learn Haskell until their head explodes .
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uuum, what do you think the WhatWG, and the W3C work on, with (X)HTML 5 and CSS3?
:)But what are you going to do, when the killer argument "that's too hard for our most totally retarded end of the target group" is thrown at you?We could have this already, if not for those people who think XHTML is "too hard".
I mean WTF?
Maybe for those wannabe ex-cab-driver "developers".
I wish I could force them to learn Haskell until their head explodes.
^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079898</id>
	<title>Re:Before you click!</title>
	<author>unix1</author>
	<datestamp>1258023600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's called link pre-fetching and it has already been <a href="https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Link\_prefetching\_FAQ" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">done</a> [mozilla.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's called link pre-fetching and it has already been done [ mozilla.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's called link pre-fetching and it has already been done [mozilla.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078576</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot could use the help</title>
	<author>amicusNYCL</author>
	<datestamp>1258019160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How is this different from Web servers that serve up gzipped pages?</p></div><p>Well, for one, gzipping output doesn't have any effect on latency.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this different from Web servers that serve up gzipped pages ? Well , for one , gzipping output does n't have any effect on latency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this different from Web servers that serve up gzipped pages?Well, for one, gzipping output doesn't have any effect on latency.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080510</id>
	<title>Re:While we're at it ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258025880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. XML.<br>2. CSS. If CSS isn't good enough, there needs to be a serious discussion about exactly what it is you are trying to accomplish.<br>3. Centralized caching: http://code.google.com/apis/ajaxlibs/documentation/index.html<br>4. What needs to be binary? I've got use of data: URIs already.<br>5. I hope you don't seriously believe that one language is going to be the end-all be-all for VERY different tasks (information architecture, display, behavior).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
XML.2. CSS .
If CSS is n't good enough , there needs to be a serious discussion about exactly what it is you are trying to accomplish.3 .
Centralized caching : http : //code.google.com/apis/ajaxlibs/documentation/index.html4 .
What needs to be binary ?
I 've got use of data : URIs already.5 .
I hope you do n't seriously believe that one language is going to be the end-all be-all for VERY different tasks ( information architecture , display , behavior ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
XML.2. CSS.
If CSS isn't good enough, there needs to be a serious discussion about exactly what it is you are trying to accomplish.3.
Centralized caching: http://code.google.com/apis/ajaxlibs/documentation/index.html4.
What needs to be binary?
I've got use of data: URIs already.5.
I hope you don't seriously believe that one language is going to be the end-all be-all for VERY different tasks (information architecture, display, behavior).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30085000</id>
	<title>Re:Solving the wrong problem</title>
	<author>Allicorn</author>
	<datestamp>1258112640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Remember how CSS was supposed to make web pages shorter and faster to load? NOT</p></div><p>Build a page that looks the same as a heavily CSS'd page but uses only presentational HTML tags and attributes to achieve the effect.</p><p>Now make a second page for the same site with different text on it. And a third. And a fourth...</p><p>There's your "CSS makes web-pages shorter and faster" right there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember how CSS was supposed to make web pages shorter and faster to load ?
NOTBuild a page that looks the same as a heavily CSS 'd page but uses only presentational HTML tags and attributes to achieve the effect.Now make a second page for the same site with different text on it .
And a third .
And a fourth...There 's your " CSS makes web-pages shorter and faster " right there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember how CSS was supposed to make web pages shorter and faster to load?
NOTBuild a page that looks the same as a heavily CSS'd page but uses only presentational HTML tags and attributes to achieve the effect.Now make a second page for the same site with different text on it.
And a third.
And a fourth...There's your "CSS makes web-pages shorter and faster" right there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078176</id>
	<title>Re:Solving the wrong problem</title>
	<author>BlueBoxSW.com</author>
	<datestamp>1258017540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if Google sped up the non-ad web, they would have more room for their ads?</p><p>SNEAKY!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if Google sped up the non-ad web , they would have more room for their ads ? SNEAKY !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if Google sped up the non-ad web, they would have more room for their ads?SNEAKY!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078640</id>
	<title>A novel idea</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1258019340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about we don't use HTTP/HTML for things they were not designed or ever intended to do? You know, that "right tool for the right job" thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about we do n't use HTTP/HTML for things they were not designed or ever intended to do ?
You know , that " right tool for the right job " thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about we don't use HTTP/HTML for things they were not designed or ever intended to do?
You know, that "right tool for the right job" thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078586</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, right... but WHY?!?</title>
	<author>layer3switch</author>
	<datestamp>1258019160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think, Google's motivation is in self interest, not end user's interest.  Reducing load and time to serve will benefit content providers, not end users.  However it's bit odd and immature for Google to fix something that is NOT broken.  Or maybe I'm too old to think like people at Google...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think , Google 's motivation is in self interest , not end user 's interest .
Reducing load and time to serve will benefit content providers , not end users .
However it 's bit odd and immature for Google to fix something that is NOT broken .
Or maybe I 'm too old to think like people at Google.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think, Google's motivation is in self interest, not end user's interest.
Reducing load and time to serve will benefit content providers, not end users.
However it's bit odd and immature for Google to fix something that is NOT broken.
Or maybe I'm too old to think like people at Google...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080006</id>
	<title>It already is, with no ads.</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1258024020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; What would be possible if browsing the web was as fast as turning the pages<br>&gt; of a magazine?</p><p>With all ads blocked (including Googles) it already is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; What would be possible if browsing the web was as fast as turning the pages &gt; of a magazine ? With all ads blocked ( including Googles ) it already is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; What would be possible if browsing the web was as fast as turning the pages&gt; of a magazine?With all ads blocked (including Googles) it already is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30099590</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot could use the help</title>
	<author>dodobh</author>
	<datestamp>1258228320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If that's a GET request, it can be cached. GET semantics imply that the same URL will always return the same value.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If that 's a GET request , it can be cached .
GET semantics imply that the same URL will always return the same value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If that's a GET request, it can be cached.
GET semantics imply that the same URL will always return the same value.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30081610</id>
	<title>Re:and faster still..</title>
	<author>daem0n1x</author>
	<datestamp>1258031220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I think Flash should be made illegal. Yesterday I visited a website 100\% made in Flash. I had to wait for it to load and then none of the links worked. Many Flash sites' links don't work in Firefox, I have no idea why. I suspect incompetent developers.
</p><p>
I sent a furious email to the company saying I was going to choose one of their competitors just because of the lousy website. I got a reply from their CEO basically saying "go ahead, we don't give a fuck".
</p><p>
Flash is like cake icing. A little bit tastes and looks great but many people find it cool to put a ton of sugar in the icing until it's nauseating.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Flash should be made illegal .
Yesterday I visited a website 100 \ % made in Flash .
I had to wait for it to load and then none of the links worked .
Many Flash sites ' links do n't work in Firefox , I have no idea why .
I suspect incompetent developers .
I sent a furious email to the company saying I was going to choose one of their competitors just because of the lousy website .
I got a reply from their CEO basically saying " go ahead , we do n't give a fuck " .
Flash is like cake icing .
A little bit tastes and looks great but many people find it cool to put a ton of sugar in the icing until it 's nauseating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I think Flash should be made illegal.
Yesterday I visited a website 100\% made in Flash.
I had to wait for it to load and then none of the links worked.
Many Flash sites' links don't work in Firefox, I have no idea why.
I suspect incompetent developers.
I sent a furious email to the company saying I was going to choose one of their competitors just because of the lousy website.
I got a reply from their CEO basically saying "go ahead, we don't give a fuck".
Flash is like cake icing.
A little bit tastes and looks great but many people find it cool to put a ton of sugar in the icing until it's nauseating.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077894</id>
	<title>Oh that's wonderful</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258016460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now we can see Uncle Goatse twice as fast.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now we can see Uncle Goatse twice as fast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now we can see Uncle Goatse twice as fast.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078756</id>
	<title>Re:Application Layer...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258019760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Doesn't that mean that both the client and the server have to be running this new application to see the benefits of this? Essentially either one or the other is still going to be using HTTP if you don't set it up on both, and its only as fast as the slowest piece.</p><p>While a great initiative, it could be a while before it actually takes off. To get the rest of the world running on a new protocol will take some time, and there will no doubt be some kinks to work out.</p><p>That's what the gopher people said</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't that mean that both the client and the server have to be running this new application to see the benefits of this ?
Essentially either one or the other is still going to be using HTTP if you do n't set it up on both , and its only as fast as the slowest piece.While a great initiative , it could be a while before it actually takes off .
To get the rest of the world running on a new protocol will take some time , and there will no doubt be some kinks to work out.That 's what the gopher people said</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't that mean that both the client and the server have to be running this new application to see the benefits of this?
Essentially either one or the other is still going to be using HTTP if you don't set it up on both, and its only as fast as the slowest piece.While a great initiative, it could be a while before it actually takes off.
To get the rest of the world running on a new protocol will take some time, and there will no doubt be some kinks to work out.That's what the gopher people said
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079158</id>
	<title>Re:While we're at it ...</title>
	<author>31415926535897</author>
	<datestamp>1258021260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are many of these components in Flex, but the downside is you have to compile to flash...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are many of these components in Flex , but the downside is you have to compile to flash.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are many of these components in Flex, but the downside is you have to compile to flash...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080620</id>
	<title>addin not needed</title>
	<author>eleuthero</author>
	<datestamp>1258026360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most of the features of fasterfox are found in about:config. There is no sense in installing an addon that will slow the browser down when the browser already has pipelining and prefetching (albeit disabled)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the features of fasterfox are found in about : config .
There is no sense in installing an addon that will slow the browser down when the browser already has pipelining and prefetching ( albeit disabled )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the features of fasterfox are found in about:config.
There is no sense in installing an addon that will slow the browser down when the browser already has pipelining and prefetching (albeit disabled)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077912</id>
	<title>Before you click!</title>
	<author>courteaudotbiz</author>
	<datestamp>1258016520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the future, the content will be loaded before you click! Unfortunately, it's not like it today, so I didn't make the first post...</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the future , the content will be loaded before you click !
Unfortunately , it 's not like it today , so I did n't make the first post.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the future, the content will be loaded before you click!
Unfortunately, it's not like it today, so I didn't make the first post...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079678</id>
	<title>Re:Solving the wrong problem</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1258022940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is my flash and javascript blocker making pages faster for me then?  If i go to a busy site and have all those ad sites blocked... is my browser still pulling all that crap? Or is it ignoring it, making the page proper load faster?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is my flash and javascript blocker making pages faster for me then ?
If i go to a busy site and have all those ad sites blocked... is my browser still pulling all that crap ?
Or is it ignoring it , making the page proper load faster ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is my flash and javascript blocker making pages faster for me then?
If i go to a busy site and have all those ad sites blocked... is my browser still pulling all that crap?
Or is it ignoring it, making the page proper load faster?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30092112</id>
	<title>HiJacked</title>
	<author>imscarr</author>
	<datestamp>1258108380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Click on <b>Chrome</b> in this article <a href="http://www.itproportal.com/portal/news/article/2009/11/4/google-rolls-out-chrome-40-beta-and-updates-its-wave-platform/" title="itproportal.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.itproportal.com/portal/news/article/2009/11/4/google-rolls-out-chrome-40-beta-and-updates-its-wave-platform/</a> [itproportal.com]<br>and you get an ad for IE8.  LOL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Click on Chrome in this article http : //www.itproportal.com/portal/news/article/2009/11/4/google-rolls-out-chrome-40-beta-and-updates-its-wave-platform/ [ itproportal.com ] and you get an ad for IE8 .
LOL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Click on Chrome in this article http://www.itproportal.com/portal/news/article/2009/11/4/google-rolls-out-chrome-40-beta-and-updates-its-wave-platform/ [itproportal.com]and you get an ad for IE8.
LOL</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078378</id>
	<title>Re:Oh that's wonderful</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258018380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you have a link for you uncles web page ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you have a link for you uncles web page ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you have a link for you uncles web page ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078024</id>
	<title>How about telling Analytics to take a hike?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258016940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And all other "add this piece of Javascript to your Web page and make it more awesomer!"

</p><p>Yes, yes, they're useful. And you can't fathom a future without them. But in the meantime I'm watching my status bar say, "completed 4 of 5 items", then change to "completed 11 of 27 items", to "completed 18 of 57 items", to "completed... oh screw this, you're downloading the whole Internet, just sit back, relax and watch the blinkenlights".

</p><p>Remember when a 768kbps DSL line was whizzo fast? Because all it had to download was some simple HTML, maybe some gifs?

</p><p>I want my old Internet back. And a pony.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And all other " add this piece of Javascript to your Web page and make it more awesomer !
" Yes , yes , they 're useful .
And you ca n't fathom a future without them .
But in the meantime I 'm watching my status bar say , " completed 4 of 5 items " , then change to " completed 11 of 27 items " , to " completed 18 of 57 items " , to " completed... oh screw this , you 're downloading the whole Internet , just sit back , relax and watch the blinkenlights " .
Remember when a 768kbps DSL line was whizzo fast ?
Because all it had to download was some simple HTML , maybe some gifs ?
I want my old Internet back .
And a pony .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And all other "add this piece of Javascript to your Web page and make it more awesomer!
"

Yes, yes, they're useful.
And you can't fathom a future without them.
But in the meantime I'm watching my status bar say, "completed 4 of 5 items", then change to "completed 11 of 27 items", to "completed 18 of 57 items", to "completed... oh screw this, you're downloading the whole Internet, just sit back, relax and watch the blinkenlights".
Remember when a 768kbps DSL line was whizzo fast?
Because all it had to download was some simple HTML, maybe some gifs?
I want my old Internet back.
And a pony.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078010</id>
	<title>Suspicious....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258016880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the link</p><p><div class="quote"><p>We downloaded 25 of the "top 100" websites over simulated home network connections, with 1\% packet loss. We ran the downloads 10 times for each site, and calculated the average page load time for each site, and across all sites. The results show a speedup over HTTP of 27\% - 60\% in page load time over plain TCP (without SSL), and 39\% - 55\% over SSL.</p></div><p>1. Look at top 100 websites.<br>2. Choose the 25 which give you good numbers and ignore the rest.<br>3. PROFIT!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the linkWe downloaded 25 of the " top 100 " websites over simulated home network connections , with 1 \ % packet loss .
We ran the downloads 10 times for each site , and calculated the average page load time for each site , and across all sites .
The results show a speedup over HTTP of 27 \ % - 60 \ % in page load time over plain TCP ( without SSL ) , and 39 \ % - 55 \ % over SSL.1 .
Look at top 100 websites.2 .
Choose the 25 which give you good numbers and ignore the rest.3 .
PROFIT !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the linkWe downloaded 25 of the "top 100" websites over simulated home network connections, with 1\% packet loss.
We ran the downloads 10 times for each site, and calculated the average page load time for each site, and across all sites.
The results show a speedup over HTTP of 27\% - 60\% in page load time over plain TCP (without SSL), and 39\% - 55\% over SSL.1.
Look at top 100 websites.2.
Choose the 25 which give you good numbers and ignore the rest.3.
PROFIT!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30083810</id>
	<title>Re:and faster still..</title>
	<author>wisty</author>
	<datestamp>1258051320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Install Adblock and its<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... oh wait, not gunna happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Install Adblock and its ... oh wait , not gunna happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Install Adblock and its ... oh wait, not gunna happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30086030</id>
	<title>Re:I don't want new protocols from Google</title>
	<author>cpghost</author>
	<datestamp>1258124100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In an ideal world, corporations would not be able to have any say whatsoever in the development of collectively used protocols or languages.</p></div></blockquote><p>

In the real world, many fundamental RFCs are being co-authored by (engineers working at) corporations. Just pay attention to the authors' section.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In an ideal world , corporations would not be able to have any say whatsoever in the development of collectively used protocols or languages .
In the real world , many fundamental RFCs are being co-authored by ( engineers working at ) corporations .
Just pay attention to the authors ' section .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In an ideal world, corporations would not be able to have any say whatsoever in the development of collectively used protocols or languages.
In the real world, many fundamental RFCs are being co-authored by (engineers working at) corporations.
Just pay attention to the authors' section.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080394</id>
	<title>Re:While we're at it ...</title>
	<author>rabtech</author>
	<datestamp>1258025460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>e have a semantic language (HTML) and a language that describes how to present that (CSS), right? This is good, let's keep it that way.</p><p>But things aren't as good as they could be. On the semantic side, we have many elements in the language that don't really convey any semantic information, and a lot of semantics there isn't an element for. On the presentation side, well, suffice it to say that there are a \_lot\_ of things that cannot be done, and others that can be done, but only with ugly kludges. Meanwhile, processing and rendering HTML and CSS takes a lot of resources.</p></div><p>The problem is that worrying about semantic vs presentation is something that almost no one gives a s**t about, because it is an artificial division that makes sense for computer science reasons, not human reasons. I don't sit down to make a web page and completely divorce the content vs the layout; the layout gives context and can be just as important as the content itself in terms of a human brain grasping an attempt at communication.</p><p>I know I shouldn't use tables for presentation but I just don't care. They are so simple and easy to visualize in my head, and using them has never caused a noticeable slowdown in my app, caused maintenance headaches, cost me any money, etc. The only downside is listening to architecture astronauts whine about how incorrect it is while they all sit around and circle-jerk about how their pages pass this-or-that validation test.</p><p>In oh so many ways writing a web app is like stepping back into computer GUI v1.0; so much must be manually re-implemented in a different way for every app. Heck, you can't even reliably get the dimensions of an element or the currently computed styles on an element. Lest you think this is mostly IE-vs-everyone else, no browser can define a content region that automatically scrolls its contents within a defined percentage of the parent element's content region; you've gotta emit javascript to dynamically calculate the size. This is double-stupid because browsers already perform this sort of layout logic for things like a textarea that has content that exceeds its bounds. And guess what? This is one of the #1 reasons people want to use overflow:auto. Don't waste screen real-estate showing scrollbars if they aren't necessary, but don't force me to hard-code height and width because then I can't scale to the user's screen resolution.</p><p>This kind of crap is so frustrating and wastes MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of man-hours year after year, yet we can't even get the major browser vendors to agree to HTMLv5 and what little bits (though very useful) it brings to the table. So please spare me the semantic vs presentation argument. If just a few people gave a s**t and stopped stroking their own egos on these bulls**t committees and actually tried to solve the problems that developers and designers deal with every day then they wouldn't have to worry about forcing everyone to adopt their standard (IPv6), the desire to adopt it would come naturally.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>e have a semantic language ( HTML ) and a language that describes how to present that ( CSS ) , right ?
This is good , let 's keep it that way.But things are n't as good as they could be .
On the semantic side , we have many elements in the language that do n't really convey any semantic information , and a lot of semantics there is n't an element for .
On the presentation side , well , suffice it to say that there are a \ _lot \ _ of things that can not be done , and others that can be done , but only with ugly kludges .
Meanwhile , processing and rendering HTML and CSS takes a lot of resources.The problem is that worrying about semantic vs presentation is something that almost no one gives a s * * t about , because it is an artificial division that makes sense for computer science reasons , not human reasons .
I do n't sit down to make a web page and completely divorce the content vs the layout ; the layout gives context and can be just as important as the content itself in terms of a human brain grasping an attempt at communication.I know I should n't use tables for presentation but I just do n't care .
They are so simple and easy to visualize in my head , and using them has never caused a noticeable slowdown in my app , caused maintenance headaches , cost me any money , etc .
The only downside is listening to architecture astronauts whine about how incorrect it is while they all sit around and circle-jerk about how their pages pass this-or-that validation test.In oh so many ways writing a web app is like stepping back into computer GUI v1.0 ; so much must be manually re-implemented in a different way for every app .
Heck , you ca n't even reliably get the dimensions of an element or the currently computed styles on an element .
Lest you think this is mostly IE-vs-everyone else , no browser can define a content region that automatically scrolls its contents within a defined percentage of the parent element 's content region ; you 've got ta emit javascript to dynamically calculate the size .
This is double-stupid because browsers already perform this sort of layout logic for things like a textarea that has content that exceeds its bounds .
And guess what ?
This is one of the # 1 reasons people want to use overflow : auto .
Do n't waste screen real-estate showing scrollbars if they are n't necessary , but do n't force me to hard-code height and width because then I ca n't scale to the user 's screen resolution.This kind of crap is so frustrating and wastes MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of man-hours year after year , yet we ca n't even get the major browser vendors to agree to HTMLv5 and what little bits ( though very useful ) it brings to the table .
So please spare me the semantic vs presentation argument .
If just a few people gave a s * * t and stopped stroking their own egos on these bulls * * t committees and actually tried to solve the problems that developers and designers deal with every day then they would n't have to worry about forcing everyone to adopt their standard ( IPv6 ) , the desire to adopt it would come naturally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>e have a semantic language (HTML) and a language that describes how to present that (CSS), right?
This is good, let's keep it that way.But things aren't as good as they could be.
On the semantic side, we have many elements in the language that don't really convey any semantic information, and a lot of semantics there isn't an element for.
On the presentation side, well, suffice it to say that there are a \_lot\_ of things that cannot be done, and others that can be done, but only with ugly kludges.
Meanwhile, processing and rendering HTML and CSS takes a lot of resources.The problem is that worrying about semantic vs presentation is something that almost no one gives a s**t about, because it is an artificial division that makes sense for computer science reasons, not human reasons.
I don't sit down to make a web page and completely divorce the content vs the layout; the layout gives context and can be just as important as the content itself in terms of a human brain grasping an attempt at communication.I know I shouldn't use tables for presentation but I just don't care.
They are so simple and easy to visualize in my head, and using them has never caused a noticeable slowdown in my app, caused maintenance headaches, cost me any money, etc.
The only downside is listening to architecture astronauts whine about how incorrect it is while they all sit around and circle-jerk about how their pages pass this-or-that validation test.In oh so many ways writing a web app is like stepping back into computer GUI v1.0; so much must be manually re-implemented in a different way for every app.
Heck, you can't even reliably get the dimensions of an element or the currently computed styles on an element.
Lest you think this is mostly IE-vs-everyone else, no browser can define a content region that automatically scrolls its contents within a defined percentage of the parent element's content region; you've gotta emit javascript to dynamically calculate the size.
This is double-stupid because browsers already perform this sort of layout logic for things like a textarea that has content that exceeds its bounds.
And guess what?
This is one of the #1 reasons people want to use overflow:auto.
Don't waste screen real-estate showing scrollbars if they aren't necessary, but don't force me to hard-code height and width because then I can't scale to the user's screen resolution.This kind of crap is so frustrating and wastes MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of man-hours year after year, yet we can't even get the major browser vendors to agree to HTMLv5 and what little bits (though very useful) it brings to the table.
So please spare me the semantic vs presentation argument.
If just a few people gave a s**t and stopped stroking their own egos on these bulls**t committees and actually tried to solve the problems that developers and designers deal with every day then they wouldn't have to worry about forcing everyone to adopt their standard (IPv6), the desire to adopt it would come naturally.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079684</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot could use the help</title>
	<author>vikstar</author>
	<datestamp>1258022940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They've had a <a href="http://www.google.com/chrome" title="google.com">solution</a> [google.com] for a long time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 've had a solution [ google.com ] for a long time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They've had a solution [google.com] for a long time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080470</id>
	<title>Re:Application Layer...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258025700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; To get the rest of the world running on a new protocol will take some time, and there will no doubt be some kinks to work out.</p><p>It's important to note that you wouldn't actually be running a new protocol.  It would be the same old HTTP, but it's going through a tunnel (an interconnect) that speeds up the communication.  If I understand correctly, there will be an encoding/decoding step on each end to turn the request back into a normal HTTP request.  HTTP was intentionally designed to allow connectors to do exactly this type of thing (a good example of a similar function is cache proxies).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; To get the rest of the world running on a new protocol will take some time , and there will no doubt be some kinks to work out.It 's important to note that you would n't actually be running a new protocol .
It would be the same old HTTP , but it 's going through a tunnel ( an interconnect ) that speeds up the communication .
If I understand correctly , there will be an encoding/decoding step on each end to turn the request back into a normal HTTP request .
HTTP was intentionally designed to allow connectors to do exactly this type of thing ( a good example of a similar function is cache proxies ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; To get the rest of the world running on a new protocol will take some time, and there will no doubt be some kinks to work out.It's important to note that you wouldn't actually be running a new protocol.
It would be the same old HTTP, but it's going through a tunnel (an interconnect) that speeds up the communication.
If I understand correctly, there will be an encoding/decoding step on each end to turn the request back into a normal HTTP request.
HTTP was intentionally designed to allow connectors to do exactly this type of thing (a good example of a similar function is cache proxies).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080748</id>
	<title>Re:Before you click!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258026900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the future, the internets go FTL and violate causality!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the future , the internets go FTL and violate causality !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the future, the internets go FTL and violate causality!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078460</id>
	<title>Don't be evil. Be swift and speedy.</title>
	<author>PDX</author>
	<datestamp>1258018680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then the customers will empty their wallets twice as fast!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then the customers will empty their wallets twice as fast !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then the customers will empty their wallets twice as fast!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078158</id>
	<title>Is he your biological uncle?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258017480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or simply an older man who likes to fondle you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or simply an older man who likes to fondle you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or simply an older man who likes to fondle you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079354</id>
	<title>Re:A novel idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258021920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you'd prefer to develop in Flex or Silverlight for web applications, then?</p><p>JavaScript/XmlHttpRequest do a fine job (especially with jQuery) for acting as the UI for web applications.  Flex and Silverlight, while pretty cool in and of themselves, add quite a bit of overhead - your thin client on the web front-end just became a thick client.</p><p>Yes, I've done both.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you 'd prefer to develop in Flex or Silverlight for web applications , then ? JavaScript/XmlHttpRequest do a fine job ( especially with jQuery ) for acting as the UI for web applications .
Flex and Silverlight , while pretty cool in and of themselves , add quite a bit of overhead - your thin client on the web front-end just became a thick client.Yes , I 've done both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you'd prefer to develop in Flex or Silverlight for web applications, then?JavaScript/XmlHttpRequest do a fine job (especially with jQuery) for acting as the UI for web applications.
Flex and Silverlight, while pretty cool in and of themselves, add quite a bit of overhead - your thin client on the web front-end just became a thick client.Yes, I've done both.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080334</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot could use the help</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258025220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; How is this different from Web servers that serve up gzipped pages?</p><p>It is in no way related to sending gzip media-type, and you can still use the "accept-encoding" header with SPDY.  From the linked page:</p><p>Some specific technical goals are:<br>* To allow many concurrent HTTP requests to run across a single TCP session.<br>* To reduce the bandwidth currently used by HTTP by compressing headers and eliminating unnecessary headers.<br>* To define a protocol that is easy to implement and server-efficient. We hope to reduce the complexity of HTTP by cutting down on edge cases and defining easily parsed message formats.<br>* To make SSL the underlying transport protocol, for better security and compatibility with existing network infrastructure. Although SSL does introduce a latency penalty, we believe that the long-term future of the web depends * on a secure network connection. In addition, the use of SSL is necessary to ensure that communication across existing proxies is not broken.<br>* To enable the server to initiate communications with the client and push data to the client whenever possible.</p><p>I guess this comment is getting modded up because you bashed Slashdot's javascript.  I know it's a lot to ask, but try to RTFA next time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; How is this different from Web servers that serve up gzipped pages ? It is in no way related to sending gzip media-type , and you can still use the " accept-encoding " header with SPDY .
From the linked page : Some specific technical goals are : * To allow many concurrent HTTP requests to run across a single TCP session .
* To reduce the bandwidth currently used by HTTP by compressing headers and eliminating unnecessary headers .
* To define a protocol that is easy to implement and server-efficient .
We hope to reduce the complexity of HTTP by cutting down on edge cases and defining easily parsed message formats .
* To make SSL the underlying transport protocol , for better security and compatibility with existing network infrastructure .
Although SSL does introduce a latency penalty , we believe that the long-term future of the web depends * on a secure network connection .
In addition , the use of SSL is necessary to ensure that communication across existing proxies is not broken .
* To enable the server to initiate communications with the client and push data to the client whenever possible.I guess this comment is getting modded up because you bashed Slashdot 's javascript .
I know it 's a lot to ask , but try to RTFA next time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; How is this different from Web servers that serve up gzipped pages?It is in no way related to sending gzip media-type, and you can still use the "accept-encoding" header with SPDY.
From the linked page:Some specific technical goals are:* To allow many concurrent HTTP requests to run across a single TCP session.
* To reduce the bandwidth currently used by HTTP by compressing headers and eliminating unnecessary headers.
* To define a protocol that is easy to implement and server-efficient.
We hope to reduce the complexity of HTTP by cutting down on edge cases and defining easily parsed message formats.
* To make SSL the underlying transport protocol, for better security and compatibility with existing network infrastructure.
Although SSL does introduce a latency penalty, we believe that the long-term future of the web depends * on a secure network connection.
In addition, the use of SSL is necessary to ensure that communication across existing proxies is not broken.
* To enable the server to initiate communications with the client and push data to the client whenever possible.I guess this comment is getting modded up because you bashed Slashdot's javascript.
I know it's a lot to ask, but try to RTFA next time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078068</id>
	<title>Application Layer...</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1258017120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't that mean that both the client and the server have to be running this new application to see the benefits of this? Essentially either one or the other is still going to be using HTTP if you don't set it up on both, and its only as fast as the slowest piece.</p><p>While a great initiative, it could be a while before it actually takes off. To get the rest of the world running on a new protocol will take some time, and there will no doubt be some kinks to work out.</p><p>But if anyone could do it, it'd be Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't that mean that both the client and the server have to be running this new application to see the benefits of this ?
Essentially either one or the other is still going to be using HTTP if you do n't set it up on both , and its only as fast as the slowest piece.While a great initiative , it could be a while before it actually takes off .
To get the rest of the world running on a new protocol will take some time , and there will no doubt be some kinks to work out.But if anyone could do it , it 'd be Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't that mean that both the client and the server have to be running this new application to see the benefits of this?
Essentially either one or the other is still going to be using HTTP if you don't set it up on both, and its only as fast as the slowest piece.While a great initiative, it could be a while before it actually takes off.
To get the rest of the world running on a new protocol will take some time, and there will no doubt be some kinks to work out.But if anyone could do it, it'd be Google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080174</id>
	<title>fst wb prtcl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258024560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they really wanted a faster web, they would have minimized the protocol name. Taking out vowels isn't enough.</p><p>The protocol should be renamed to just 's'.</p><p>That's 3 less bytes per request.</p><p>I can haz goolge internship?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they really wanted a faster web , they would have minimized the protocol name .
Taking out vowels is n't enough.The protocol should be renamed to just 's'.That 's 3 less bytes per request.I can haz goolge internship ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they really wanted a faster web, they would have minimized the protocol name.
Taking out vowels isn't enough.The protocol should be renamed to just 's'.That's 3 less bytes per request.I can haz goolge internship?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078054</id>
	<title>If I use it</title>
	<author>overlordofmu</author>
	<datestamp>1258017000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Will I successfully be able to first-post?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will I successfully be able to first-post ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will I successfully be able to first-post?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077954</id>
	<title>Slashdot could use the help</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258016700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>How is this different from Web servers that serve up gzipped pages?
<br> <br>
If only the Google engineers can do something about Slashdot's atrociously slow Javascript.  Like maybe they can remove the sleep() statements.
<br> <br>
What, just because the original poster pulls a "look at me, I did something cool, therefore I must be cool!" doesn't mean I have to go along with it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this different from Web servers that serve up gzipped pages ?
If only the Google engineers can do something about Slashdot 's atrociously slow Javascript .
Like maybe they can remove the sleep ( ) statements .
What , just because the original poster pulls a " look at me , I did something cool , therefore I must be cool !
" does n't mean I have to go along with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this different from Web servers that serve up gzipped pages?
If only the Google engineers can do something about Slashdot's atrociously slow Javascript.
Like maybe they can remove the sleep() statements.
What, just because the original poster pulls a "look at me, I did something cool, therefore I must be cool!
" doesn't mean I have to go along with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30082782</id>
	<title>HOSTS FILES ARE AN ANSWER for speed &amp; SECURITY</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258040520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><div class="quote"><p><b>"Remember when a 768kbps DSL line was whizzo fast? Because all it had to download was some simple HTML, maybe some gifs? I want my old Internet back."</b> - by rho (6063) on Thursday November 12, @03:09PM (#30078024) Homepage</p></div><p>I'm using that EXACT speed of connection... &amp; IT FLIES!</p><p>How?</p><p>Easy...</p><p>Use a custom HOSTS file, &amp; then use some GLOBAL disabling of javascript on "every website under the sun" (&amp; ONLY USE IT WHERE YOU ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO).</p><p>Both practices result in a FASTER AND S A F E R internet, period (according to my pal Jack, a certified PI, it is "twice as fast"... but, he values the security end more (because he would literally get NAILED, each week, by (&amp;, I kid you not) @ LEAST 200++ viruses/spwyares/trojans/malwares-in-general)).</p><p>(So - My word, &amp; my buddy's results not good enough? Fair enough then, ok... how about the word of a published security analyst then from SECURITYFOCUS.COM?)</p><p>----</p><p><b>RESURRECTING THE KILLFILE:</b></p><p>(by Mr. Oliver Day)</p><p><a href="http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491" title="securityfocus.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491</a> [securityfocus.com]</p><p><b>PERTINENT EXCERPTS/QUOTES:</b></p><p>"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet particularly browsing the Web is actually faster now."</p><p>"From what I have seen in my research, major efforts to share lists of unwanted hosts began gaining serious momentum earlier this decade. The most popular appear to have started as a means to block advertising and as a way to avoid being tracked by sites that use cookies to gather data on the user across Web properties. More recently, projects like Spybot Search and Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans and other forms of malware."</p><p>----</p><p>"Nuff said/I rest my case..."</p><p>APK</p><p>P.S.=&gt; You can get good reliable HOSTS files from these sources (stay away from the ones from France @ Wikipedia though - TOO many "falsies" in that one), like WIKIPEDIA's page on HOSTS files -&gt; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts\_file" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts\_file</a> [wikipedia.org], or, mvps.org's is a good one too!</p><p>From all the choices in DECENT HOSTS FILES above? Well - I used them ALL... &amp;, I consolidated them ALL into 1 HUGE HOSTS file here via a program I wrote in Borland Delphi 7 to do it, since this involves string processing, some of the heaviest work a PC does in fact, &amp; DELPHI RULES THAT ROOST, even DOUBLING MSVC++ in that speed cateogory, which is why I chose to write my tool in it (I use it to keep duplicates out of &amp; then to "reformat the interior" of the HOSTS I use, to use the smallest/fastest blocking IP address there is for Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, in 0 preceeding domainnames/hostnames to block out, &amp;/or 0.0.0.0 for Windows VISTA/Server 2008 + Windows 7 (MS made a change after 12/09/2008 taking out the ability to use 0 (smaller &amp; faster) as a blocking "IP Address" in HOSTS files (when it could before that in VISTA, &amp; oddly, Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 STILL CAN USE 0 (vs. the larger &amp; slower 0.0.0.0 but worse yet, the default 127.0.0.1 "loopback adapter" address)). I wish MS would change this 1 thing in Windows 7 in fact, because IF the do? I would think it is NEAR PERFECT, in fact.</p><p>(Plus, keeping them populated &amp; "up-to-date" is easily done if you use SpyBot "Search &amp; Destroy", because it not only 'fortifies' private webbrowser "block lists" like Opera's URLFILTER.INI/FILTER.INI, or also IE restricted zones too (FF has this also), but, it also populates your HOSTS file with blocking entries vs. KNOWN BAD WEBSITES/BOTNET COMMAND &amp; CONTROL SERVERS/BAD ADBANNERS, "automagically" via its IMMUNIZE feature (yes, these too, have had malscript in them the past few years now here &amp; there also), &amp; there are PLENTY of sites like Dancho Danchev's security blog for ZDNet, SRI, FireEye, &amp; many more that provide latest/up-to-date info. on bad sites, so YOU can edit your hosts with notepad.exe &amp; add in blocks vs. those known bogus sites &amp;/or servers yourself, with ease... apk</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Remember when a 768kbps DSL line was whizzo fast ?
Because all it had to download was some simple HTML , maybe some gifs ?
I want my old Internet back .
" - by rho ( 6063 ) on Thursday November 12 , @ 03 : 09PM ( # 30078024 ) HomepageI 'm using that EXACT speed of connection... &amp; IT FLIES ! How ? Easy...Use a custom HOSTS file , &amp; then use some GLOBAL disabling of javascript on " every website under the sun " ( &amp; ONLY USE IT WHERE YOU ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO ) .Both practices result in a FASTER AND S A F E R internet , period ( according to my pal Jack , a certified PI , it is " twice as fast " ... but , he values the security end more ( because he would literally get NAILED , each week , by ( &amp; , I kid you not ) @ LEAST 200 + + viruses/spwyares/trojans/malwares-in-general ) ) .
( So - My word , &amp; my buddy 's results not good enough ?
Fair enough then , ok... how about the word of a published security analyst then from SECURITYFOCUS.COM ?
) ----RESURRECTING THE KILLFILE : ( by Mr. Oliver Day ) http : //www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491 [ securityfocus.com ] PERTINENT EXCERPTS/QUOTES : " The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long .
Accessing the Internet particularly browsing the Web is actually faster now .
" " From what I have seen in my research , major efforts to share lists of unwanted hosts began gaining serious momentum earlier this decade .
The most popular appear to have started as a means to block advertising and as a way to avoid being tracked by sites that use cookies to gather data on the user across Web properties .
More recently , projects like Spybot Search and Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans and other forms of malware .
" ---- " Nuff said/I rest my case... " APKP.S. = &gt; You can get good reliable HOSTS files from these sources ( stay away from the ones from France @ Wikipedia though - TOO many " falsies " in that one ) , like WIKIPEDIA 's page on HOSTS files - &gt; http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts \ _file [ wikipedia.org ] , or , mvps.org 's is a good one too ! From all the choices in DECENT HOSTS FILES above ?
Well - I used them ALL... &amp; , I consolidated them ALL into 1 HUGE HOSTS file here via a program I wrote in Borland Delphi 7 to do it , since this involves string processing , some of the heaviest work a PC does in fact , &amp; DELPHI RULES THAT ROOST , even DOUBLING MSVC + + in that speed cateogory , which is why I chose to write my tool in it ( I use it to keep duplicates out of &amp; then to " reformat the interior " of the HOSTS I use , to use the smallest/fastest blocking IP address there is for Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 , in 0 preceeding domainnames/hostnames to block out , &amp;/or 0.0.0.0 for Windows VISTA/Server 2008 + Windows 7 ( MS made a change after 12/09/2008 taking out the ability to use 0 ( smaller &amp; faster ) as a blocking " IP Address " in HOSTS files ( when it could before that in VISTA , &amp; oddly , Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 STILL CAN USE 0 ( vs. the larger &amp; slower 0.0.0.0 but worse yet , the default 127.0.0.1 " loopback adapter " address ) ) .
I wish MS would change this 1 thing in Windows 7 in fact , because IF the do ?
I would think it is NEAR PERFECT , in fact .
( Plus , keeping them populated &amp; " up-to-date " is easily done if you use SpyBot " Search &amp; Destroy " , because it not only 'fortifies ' private webbrowser " block lists " like Opera 's URLFILTER.INI/FILTER.INI , or also IE restricted zones too ( FF has this also ) , but , it also populates your HOSTS file with blocking entries vs. KNOWN BAD WEBSITES/BOTNET COMMAND &amp; CONTROL SERVERS/BAD ADBANNERS , " automagically " via its IMMUNIZE feature ( yes , these too , have had malscript in them the past few years now here &amp; there also ) , &amp; there are PLENTY of sites like Dancho Danchev 's security blog for ZDNet , SRI , FireEye , &amp; many more that provide latest/up-to-date info .
on bad sites , so YOU can edit your hosts with notepad.exe &amp; add in blocks vs. those known bogus sites &amp;/or servers yourself , with ease... apk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Remember when a 768kbps DSL line was whizzo fast?
Because all it had to download was some simple HTML, maybe some gifs?
I want my old Internet back.
" - by rho (6063) on Thursday November 12, @03:09PM (#30078024) HomepageI'm using that EXACT speed of connection... &amp; IT FLIES!How?Easy...Use a custom HOSTS file, &amp; then use some GLOBAL disabling of javascript on "every website under the sun" (&amp; ONLY USE IT WHERE YOU ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO).Both practices result in a FASTER AND S A F E R internet, period (according to my pal Jack, a certified PI, it is "twice as fast"... but, he values the security end more (because he would literally get NAILED, each week, by (&amp;, I kid you not) @ LEAST 200++ viruses/spwyares/trojans/malwares-in-general)).
(So - My word, &amp; my buddy's results not good enough?
Fair enough then, ok... how about the word of a published security analyst then from SECURITYFOCUS.COM?
)----RESURRECTING THE KILLFILE:(by Mr. Oliver Day)http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491 [securityfocus.com]PERTINENT EXCERPTS/QUOTES:"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long.
Accessing the Internet particularly browsing the Web is actually faster now.
""From what I have seen in my research, major efforts to share lists of unwanted hosts began gaining serious momentum earlier this decade.
The most popular appear to have started as a means to block advertising and as a way to avoid being tracked by sites that use cookies to gather data on the user across Web properties.
More recently, projects like Spybot Search and Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans and other forms of malware.
"----"Nuff said/I rest my case..."APKP.S.=&gt; You can get good reliable HOSTS files from these sources (stay away from the ones from France @ Wikipedia though - TOO many "falsies" in that one), like WIKIPEDIA's page on HOSTS files -&gt; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts\_file [wikipedia.org], or, mvps.org's is a good one too!From all the choices in DECENT HOSTS FILES above?
Well - I used them ALL... &amp;, I consolidated them ALL into 1 HUGE HOSTS file here via a program I wrote in Borland Delphi 7 to do it, since this involves string processing, some of the heaviest work a PC does in fact, &amp; DELPHI RULES THAT ROOST, even DOUBLING MSVC++ in that speed cateogory, which is why I chose to write my tool in it (I use it to keep duplicates out of &amp; then to "reformat the interior" of the HOSTS I use, to use the smallest/fastest blocking IP address there is for Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, in 0 preceeding domainnames/hostnames to block out, &amp;/or 0.0.0.0 for Windows VISTA/Server 2008 + Windows 7 (MS made a change after 12/09/2008 taking out the ability to use 0 (smaller &amp; faster) as a blocking "IP Address" in HOSTS files (when it could before that in VISTA, &amp; oddly, Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 STILL CAN USE 0 (vs. the larger &amp; slower 0.0.0.0 but worse yet, the default 127.0.0.1 "loopback adapter" address)).
I wish MS would change this 1 thing in Windows 7 in fact, because IF the do?
I would think it is NEAR PERFECT, in fact.
(Plus, keeping them populated &amp; "up-to-date" is easily done if you use SpyBot "Search &amp; Destroy", because it not only 'fortifies' private webbrowser "block lists" like Opera's URLFILTER.INI/FILTER.INI, or also IE restricted zones too (FF has this also), but, it also populates your HOSTS file with blocking entries vs. KNOWN BAD WEBSITES/BOTNET COMMAND &amp; CONTROL SERVERS/BAD ADBANNERS, "automagically" via its IMMUNIZE feature (yes, these too, have had malscript in them the past few years now here &amp; there also), &amp; there are PLENTY of sites like Dancho Danchev's security blog for ZDNet, SRI, FireEye, &amp; many more that provide latest/up-to-date info.
on bad sites, so YOU can edit your hosts with notepad.exe &amp; add in blocks vs. those known bogus sites &amp;/or servers yourself, with ease... apk
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079042</id>
	<title>Re:Just turn off image loading</title>
	<author>mattack2</author>
	<datestamp>1258020900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or "links" if you care at least a little about the visual presentation of the page.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or " links " if you care at least a little about the visual presentation of the page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or "links" if you care at least a little about the visual presentation of the page.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078336</id>
	<title>While we're at it ...</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1258018200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While we're at it, let's also make processing web pages faster.</p><p>We have a semantic language (HTML) and a language that describes how to present that (CSS), right? This is good, let's keep it that way.</p><p>But things aren't as good as they could be. On the semantic side, we have many elements in the language that don't really convey any semantic information, and a lot of semantics there isn't an element for. On the presentation side, well, suffice it to say that there are a \_lot\_ of things that cannot be done, and others that can be done, but only with ugly kludges. Meanwhile, processing and rendering HTML and CSS takes a lot of resources.</p><p>Here is my proposal:</p><p>
&nbsp; - For the semantics, let's introduce an extensible language. Imagine it as a sort of programming language, where the standard library has elements for common things like paragraphs, hyperlinks, headings, etc. and there are additional libraries which add more specialized elements, e.g. there could be a library for web fora (or blogs, if you prefer), a library for screenshot galleries, etc.</p><p>
&nbsp; - For the presentation, let's introduce something that actually supports the features of the presentation medium. For example, for presentation on desktop operating systems, you would have support for things like buttons and checkboxes, fonts, drawing primitives, and events like keypresses and mouse clicks. Again, this should be a modular system, where you can, for example, have a library to implement the look of your website, which you can then re-use in all your pages.</p><p>
&nbsp; - Introduce a standard for the distribution of the various modules, to facilitate re-use (no having to download a huge library on every page load).</p><p>
&nbsp; - It could be beneficial to define both a textual, human readable form and a binary form that can be efficiently parsed by computers. Combined with a mapping between the two, you can have the best of both worlds: efficient processing by machine, and readable by humans.</p><p>
&nbsp; - There needn't actually be separate languages for semantics, presentation and scripting; it can all be done in a single language, thus simplifying things</p><p>I'd be working on this if my job didn't take so much time and energy, but, as it is, I'm just throwing these ideas out here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While we 're at it , let 's also make processing web pages faster.We have a semantic language ( HTML ) and a language that describes how to present that ( CSS ) , right ?
This is good , let 's keep it that way.But things are n't as good as they could be .
On the semantic side , we have many elements in the language that do n't really convey any semantic information , and a lot of semantics there is n't an element for .
On the presentation side , well , suffice it to say that there are a \ _lot \ _ of things that can not be done , and others that can be done , but only with ugly kludges .
Meanwhile , processing and rendering HTML and CSS takes a lot of resources.Here is my proposal :   - For the semantics , let 's introduce an extensible language .
Imagine it as a sort of programming language , where the standard library has elements for common things like paragraphs , hyperlinks , headings , etc .
and there are additional libraries which add more specialized elements , e.g .
there could be a library for web fora ( or blogs , if you prefer ) , a library for screenshot galleries , etc .
  - For the presentation , let 's introduce something that actually supports the features of the presentation medium .
For example , for presentation on desktop operating systems , you would have support for things like buttons and checkboxes , fonts , drawing primitives , and events like keypresses and mouse clicks .
Again , this should be a modular system , where you can , for example , have a library to implement the look of your website , which you can then re-use in all your pages .
  - Introduce a standard for the distribution of the various modules , to facilitate re-use ( no having to download a huge library on every page load ) .
  - It could be beneficial to define both a textual , human readable form and a binary form that can be efficiently parsed by computers .
Combined with a mapping between the two , you can have the best of both worlds : efficient processing by machine , and readable by humans .
  - There need n't actually be separate languages for semantics , presentation and scripting ; it can all be done in a single language , thus simplifying thingsI 'd be working on this if my job did n't take so much time and energy , but , as it is , I 'm just throwing these ideas out here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While we're at it, let's also make processing web pages faster.We have a semantic language (HTML) and a language that describes how to present that (CSS), right?
This is good, let's keep it that way.But things aren't as good as they could be.
On the semantic side, we have many elements in the language that don't really convey any semantic information, and a lot of semantics there isn't an element for.
On the presentation side, well, suffice it to say that there are a \_lot\_ of things that cannot be done, and others that can be done, but only with ugly kludges.
Meanwhile, processing and rendering HTML and CSS takes a lot of resources.Here is my proposal:
  - For the semantics, let's introduce an extensible language.
Imagine it as a sort of programming language, where the standard library has elements for common things like paragraphs, hyperlinks, headings, etc.
and there are additional libraries which add more specialized elements, e.g.
there could be a library for web fora (or blogs, if you prefer), a library for screenshot galleries, etc.
  - For the presentation, let's introduce something that actually supports the features of the presentation medium.
For example, for presentation on desktop operating systems, you would have support for things like buttons and checkboxes, fonts, drawing primitives, and events like keypresses and mouse clicks.
Again, this should be a modular system, where you can, for example, have a library to implement the look of your website, which you can then re-use in all your pages.
  - Introduce a standard for the distribution of the various modules, to facilitate re-use (no having to download a huge library on every page load).
  - It could be beneficial to define both a textual, human readable form and a binary form that can be efficiently parsed by computers.
Combined with a mapping between the two, you can have the best of both worlds: efficient processing by machine, and readable by humans.
  - There needn't actually be separate languages for semantics, presentation and scripting; it can all be done in a single language, thus simplifying thingsI'd be working on this if my job didn't take so much time and energy, but, as it is, I'm just throwing these ideas out here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078914</id>
	<title>Looks at the calendar...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258020360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right. It's not April 1st.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right .
It 's not April 1st .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right.
It's not April 1st.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078332</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot could use the help</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258018140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They need start with practicing what they preach...</p><p><a href="http://code.google.com/speed/articles/caching.html" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://code.google.com/speed/articles/caching.html</a> [google.com]<br><a href="http://code.google.com/speed/articles/prefetching.html" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://code.google.com/speed/articles/prefetching.html</a> [google.com]<br><a href="http://code.google.com/speed/articles/optimizing-html.html" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://code.google.com/speed/articles/optimizing-html.html</a> [google.com]</p><p>They turn on caching for everything but then spit out junk like</p><p><a href="http://v9.lscache4.c.youtube.com/generate\_204?ip=0.0.0.0&amp;sparams=id\%2Cexpire\%2Cip\%2Cipbits\%2Citag\%2Calgorithm\%2Cburst\%2Cfactor&amp;fexp=903900\%2C903206&amp;algorithm=throttle-factor&amp;itag=34&amp;ipbits=0&amp;burst=40&amp;sver=3&amp;expire=1258081200&amp;key=yt1&amp;signature=8214C5787766320D138B1764BF009CF62A596FF9.D86886CFF40DB7F847246D653E9D3AA5B1D18610&amp;factor=1.25&amp;id=ccbfe79256f2b5b6" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://v9.lscache4.c.youtube.com/generate\_204?ip=0.0.0.0&amp;sparams=id\%2Cexpire\%2Cip\%2Cipbits\%2Citag\%2Calgorithm\%2Cburst\%2Cfactor&amp;fexp=903900\%2C903206&amp;algorithm=throttle-factor&amp;itag=34&amp;ipbits=0&amp;burst=40&amp;sver=3&amp;expire=1258081200&amp;key=yt1&amp;signature=8214C5787766320D138B1764BF009CF62A596FF9.D86886CFF40DB7F847246D653E9D3AA5B1D18610&amp;factor=1.25&amp;id=ccbfe79256f2b5b6</a> [youtube.com]</p><p>Most cache programs just straight up ignore this.  Because of the '?' in there.  It ends up being a query to static data.</p><p>Then never mind the load balancing bits they put in there with 'v9.lscache4.c.'.  So even IF you get your cache to keep the data you may end up with a totally different server and the same piece of data just served from another server.  There have been a few hacks to 'rewrite' the headers and the names to make it stick.  But those are just hacks and while they work they seem fragile.</p><p>The real issue is at the HTTP layer and how servers are pointed at from inside the 'code'.  So instead of some sort of indirection that would make it simple for the client to say 'these 20 servers have the same bit of data' they must assume that the data is different from every server.</p><p>Compression and javascript speedups are all well and good but there is a different more fundamental problem of extra reload of data that has already been retrieved.  As local network usage is almost always faster than going back out to the internet.  In a single user environment this is not too big of a deal.  But in a 10+ user environment it is a MUCH bigger deal.</p><p>Even the page that talks about optimization has issues<br><a href="http://code.google.com/speed/articles/" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://code.google.com/speed/articles/</a> [google.com]<br>12 cr/lf right at the top of the page that are not rendered anywhere.  They should look at themselves first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They need start with practicing what they preach...http : //code.google.com/speed/articles/caching.html [ google.com ] http : //code.google.com/speed/articles/prefetching.html [ google.com ] http : //code.google.com/speed/articles/optimizing-html.html [ google.com ] They turn on caching for everything but then spit out junk likehttp : //v9.lscache4.c.youtube.com/generate \ _204 ? ip = 0.0.0.0&amp;sparams = id \ % 2Cexpire \ % 2Cip \ % 2Cipbits \ % 2Citag \ % 2Calgorithm \ % 2Cburst \ % 2Cfactor&amp;fexp = 903900 \ % 2C903206&amp;algorithm = throttle-factor&amp;itag = 34&amp;ipbits = 0&amp;burst = 40&amp;sver = 3&amp;expire = 1258081200&amp;key = yt1&amp;signature = 8214C5787766320D138B1764BF009CF62A596FF9.D86886CFF40DB7F847246D653E9D3AA5B1D18610&amp;factor = 1.25&amp;id = ccbfe79256f2b5b6 [ youtube.com ] Most cache programs just straight up ignore this .
Because of the ' ?
' in there .
It ends up being a query to static data.Then never mind the load balancing bits they put in there with 'v9.lscache4.c.' .
So even IF you get your cache to keep the data you may end up with a totally different server and the same piece of data just served from another server .
There have been a few hacks to 'rewrite ' the headers and the names to make it stick .
But those are just hacks and while they work they seem fragile.The real issue is at the HTTP layer and how servers are pointed at from inside the 'code' .
So instead of some sort of indirection that would make it simple for the client to say 'these 20 servers have the same bit of data ' they must assume that the data is different from every server.Compression and javascript speedups are all well and good but there is a different more fundamental problem of extra reload of data that has already been retrieved .
As local network usage is almost always faster than going back out to the internet .
In a single user environment this is not too big of a deal .
But in a 10 + user environment it is a MUCH bigger deal.Even the page that talks about optimization has issueshttp : //code.google.com/speed/articles/ [ google.com ] 12 cr/lf right at the top of the page that are not rendered anywhere .
They should look at themselves first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They need start with practicing what they preach...http://code.google.com/speed/articles/caching.html [google.com]http://code.google.com/speed/articles/prefetching.html [google.com]http://code.google.com/speed/articles/optimizing-html.html [google.com]They turn on caching for everything but then spit out junk likehttp://v9.lscache4.c.youtube.com/generate\_204?ip=0.0.0.0&amp;sparams=id\%2Cexpire\%2Cip\%2Cipbits\%2Citag\%2Calgorithm\%2Cburst\%2Cfactor&amp;fexp=903900\%2C903206&amp;algorithm=throttle-factor&amp;itag=34&amp;ipbits=0&amp;burst=40&amp;sver=3&amp;expire=1258081200&amp;key=yt1&amp;signature=8214C5787766320D138B1764BF009CF62A596FF9.D86886CFF40DB7F847246D653E9D3AA5B1D18610&amp;factor=1.25&amp;id=ccbfe79256f2b5b6 [youtube.com]Most cache programs just straight up ignore this.
Because of the '?
' in there.
It ends up being a query to static data.Then never mind the load balancing bits they put in there with 'v9.lscache4.c.'.
So even IF you get your cache to keep the data you may end up with a totally different server and the same piece of data just served from another server.
There have been a few hacks to 'rewrite' the headers and the names to make it stick.
But those are just hacks and while they work they seem fragile.The real issue is at the HTTP layer and how servers are pointed at from inside the 'code'.
So instead of some sort of indirection that would make it simple for the client to say 'these 20 servers have the same bit of data' they must assume that the data is different from every server.Compression and javascript speedups are all well and good but there is a different more fundamental problem of extra reload of data that has already been retrieved.
As local network usage is almost always faster than going back out to the internet.
In a single user environment this is not too big of a deal.
But in a 10+ user environment it is a MUCH bigger deal.Even the page that talks about optimization has issueshttp://code.google.com/speed/articles/ [google.com]12 cr/lf right at the top of the page that are not rendered anywhere.
They should look at themselves first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30084426</id>
	<title>What's the right tool for what's web apps today?</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1258102980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"right tool for the right job"</p></div><p>Fair enough.</p><p>What's the right tool to deliver to your users rich applications which are</p><ul><li>accessible from (almost) any computer, anywhere</li><li>doesn't require the user to install software that isn't already pre-installed on most computers</li><li>works on all architectures and operating systems</li><li>can be updated for everybody by the application provider without invading peoples' machines</li></ul><p>I don't know of any tool other than HTTP/HTML.  I can imagine something with ssh and X forwarding, but windows boxes don't come with X preinstalled (nor ssh).  Remote desktop, perhaps?  Any other good ideas?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" right tool for the right job " Fair enough.What 's the right tool to deliver to your users rich applications which areaccessible from ( almost ) any computer , anywheredoes n't require the user to install software that is n't already pre-installed on most computersworks on all architectures and operating systemscan be updated for everybody by the application provider without invading peoples ' machinesI do n't know of any tool other than HTTP/HTML .
I can imagine something with ssh and X forwarding , but windows boxes do n't come with X preinstalled ( nor ssh ) .
Remote desktop , perhaps ?
Any other good ideas ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"right tool for the right job"Fair enough.What's the right tool to deliver to your users rich applications which areaccessible from (almost) any computer, anywheredoesn't require the user to install software that isn't already pre-installed on most computersworks on all architectures and operating systemscan be updated for everybody by the application provider without invading peoples' machinesI don't know of any tool other than HTTP/HTML.
I can imagine something with ssh and X forwarding, but windows boxes don't come with X preinstalled (nor ssh).
Remote desktop, perhaps?
Any other good ideas?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30083218</id>
	<title>Re:HTTP-NG Revisited (ten years later!)</title>
	<author>icepick72</author>
	<datestamp>1258044000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh IE will try to catch up when they realize their browser seems suddenly and even much much slower than the others.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh IE will try to catch up when they realize their browser seems suddenly and even much much slower than the others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh IE will try to catch up when they realize their browser seems suddenly and even much much slower than the others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078278</id>
	<title>Yeah, right... but WHY?!?</title>
	<author>51M02</author>
	<datestamp>1258017960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean reinventing the wheel, well why not, this one is old and let say we have done all we could with HTTP...</p><p>But why, WHY should you call that with a stupid name like SPDY?!? It's not even an acronym (of is it?).</p><p>It sound bad, it's years (decade?) before it is well supported... but why not. Wake me when it's done ready for production.</p><p>I guess they start to get bored at Google if they are trying not rewrite HTTP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean reinventing the wheel , well why not , this one is old and let say we have done all we could with HTTP...But why , WHY should you call that with a stupid name like SPDY ? ! ?
It 's not even an acronym ( of is it ?
) .It sound bad , it 's years ( decade ?
) before it is well supported... but why not .
Wake me when it 's done ready for production.I guess they start to get bored at Google if they are trying not rewrite HTTP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean reinventing the wheel, well why not, this one is old and let say we have done all we could with HTTP...But why, WHY should you call that with a stupid name like SPDY?!?
It's not even an acronym (of is it?
).It sound bad, it's years (decade?
) before it is well supported... but why not.
Wake me when it's done ready for production.I guess they start to get bored at Google if they are trying not rewrite HTTP.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078422</id>
	<title>Re:How about telling Analytics to take a hike?</title>
	<author>gstoddart</author>
	<datestamp>1258018560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Remember when a 768kbps DSL line was whizzo fast?</p></div></blockquote><p>Jeebus.  I remember when my 1200 baud modem felt whizzo fast compared to my old 300 baud modem.</p><p>And, yes, I can already see the "get off of my lawn" posts below you, and I'm dating myself.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-P</p><p>Cheers</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember when a 768kbps DSL line was whizzo fast ? Jeebus .
I remember when my 1200 baud modem felt whizzo fast compared to my old 300 baud modem.And , yes , I can already see the " get off of my lawn " posts below you , and I 'm dating myself .
: -PCheers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember when a 768kbps DSL line was whizzo fast?Jeebus.
I remember when my 1200 baud modem felt whizzo fast compared to my old 300 baud modem.And, yes, I can already see the "get off of my lawn" posts below you, and I'm dating myself.
:-PCheers
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078820</id>
	<title>Twice as fast doesn't justify it</title>
	<author>edelbrp</author>
	<datestamp>1258020000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from!</p><p>Why in the world implement a new standard whose purpose is to speed up the web yet only do it 2x under certain conditions?  To be taken seriously, it would have to be orders of magnitude faster, but that's a huge hurdle because the root of the problem isn't the HTTP protocol, but what's happening on the web server (no pipelined connections? slow DB? uncompressed content? sloppy, inefficient coding?) and the end users' bandwidth.  The one thing SPDY has going for it is compressing headers and eliminating redundant headers, but that's a small gain really.</p><p>In any case, you could simply wait and things will get naturally faster w/o new protocols because servers generally get faster and users' bandwidth increases.  And by the same token the benefits of a new in-between protocol would diminish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from ! Why in the world implement a new standard whose purpose is to speed up the web yet only do it 2x under certain conditions ?
To be taken seriously , it would have to be orders of magnitude faster , but that 's a huge hurdle because the root of the problem is n't the HTTP protocol , but what 's happening on the web server ( no pipelined connections ?
slow DB ?
uncompressed content ?
sloppy , inefficient coding ?
) and the end users ' bandwidth .
The one thing SPDY has going for it is compressing headers and eliminating redundant headers , but that 's a small gain really.In any case , you could simply wait and things will get naturally faster w/o new protocols because servers generally get faster and users ' bandwidth increases .
And by the same token the benefits of a new in-between protocol would diminish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from!Why in the world implement a new standard whose purpose is to speed up the web yet only do it 2x under certain conditions?
To be taken seriously, it would have to be orders of magnitude faster, but that's a huge hurdle because the root of the problem isn't the HTTP protocol, but what's happening on the web server (no pipelined connections?
slow DB?
uncompressed content?
sloppy, inefficient coding?
) and the end users' bandwidth.
The one thing SPDY has going for it is compressing headers and eliminating redundant headers, but that's a small gain really.In any case, you could simply wait and things will get naturally faster w/o new protocols because servers generally get faster and users' bandwidth increases.
And by the same token the benefits of a new in-between protocol would diminish.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079836</id>
	<title>Re:Solving the wrong problem</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1258023420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's because anyone can put up a web page. Anyone with any serious intention of doing things write won't let their page be hindered by CSS and it's dead easy to shove a good portion of your Javascript to the bottom of the page to be executed last. This is good for numerous reasons but most importantly because any slow third party JS won't stop the user from using the page.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because anyone can put up a web page .
Anyone with any serious intention of doing things write wo n't let their page be hindered by CSS and it 's dead easy to shove a good portion of your Javascript to the bottom of the page to be executed last .
This is good for numerous reasons but most importantly because any slow third party JS wo n't stop the user from using the page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because anyone can put up a web page.
Anyone with any serious intention of doing things write won't let their page be hindered by CSS and it's dead easy to shove a good portion of your Javascript to the bottom of the page to be executed last.
This is good for numerous reasons but most importantly because any slow third party JS won't stop the user from using the page.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078342</id>
	<title>Re:Solving the wrong problem</title>
	<author>Cyner</author>
	<datestamp>1258018200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't forget the servers that are overloaded, or have poorly written code. An easy can, check out HP's bloated website. Each page has relatively little content compared to the load times. It's all in the backend processing, which must be massive seeing as how it takes 1/2 to several seconds for the server to process requests for even simple pages.<br>
<br>
As the OP said, they're solving the wrong problem. It's not a transport issue, it's design issues. And many websites are rife with <a href="http://worsethanfailure.com/" title="worsethanfailure.com">horrible design</a> [worsethanfailure.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget the servers that are overloaded , or have poorly written code .
An easy can , check out HP 's bloated website .
Each page has relatively little content compared to the load times .
It 's all in the backend processing , which must be massive seeing as how it takes 1/2 to several seconds for the server to process requests for even simple pages .
As the OP said , they 're solving the wrong problem .
It 's not a transport issue , it 's design issues .
And many websites are rife with horrible design [ worsethanfailure.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget the servers that are overloaded, or have poorly written code.
An easy can, check out HP's bloated website.
Each page has relatively little content compared to the load times.
It's all in the backend processing, which must be massive seeing as how it takes 1/2 to several seconds for the server to process requests for even simple pages.
As the OP said, they're solving the wrong problem.
It's not a transport issue, it's design issues.
And many websites are rife with horrible design [worsethanfailure.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30081620</id>
	<title>Re:HTTP-NG Revisited (ten years later!)</title>
	<author>Tumbleweed</author>
	<datestamp>1258031280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Now we have to decide what color to paint it.</i></p><p>Black.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now we have to decide what color to paint it.Black .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now we have to decide what color to paint it.Black.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079846</id>
	<title>Re:How about telling Analytics to take a hike?</title>
	<author>vikstar</author>
	<datestamp>1258023480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Welcome to Web 2.0, where it takes a little longer to load a webpage, but you don't need to send HTTP requests every time you click something. Imagine reloading all the comments of a Slashdot article just to post a reply. You're like one of those people that complain about mobile phones to someone whom your talking to on a mobile phone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome to Web 2.0 , where it takes a little longer to load a webpage , but you do n't need to send HTTP requests every time you click something .
Imagine reloading all the comments of a Slashdot article just to post a reply .
You 're like one of those people that complain about mobile phones to someone whom your talking to on a mobile phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Welcome to Web 2.0, where it takes a little longer to load a webpage, but you don't need to send HTTP requests every time you click something.
Imagine reloading all the comments of a Slashdot article just to post a reply.
You're like one of those people that complain about mobile phones to someone whom your talking to on a mobile phone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078442</id>
	<title>Re:Before you click!</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1258018680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>In the future, the content will be loaded before you click!</i></p><p>Wouldn't you have to have some <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiotimoline" title="wikipedia.org">thiotimoline</a> [wikipedia.org] and water in your mouse for that to work? Thiotimoline ain't cheap, you know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the future , the content will be loaded before you click ! Would n't you have to have some thiotimoline [ wikipedia.org ] and water in your mouse for that to work ?
Thiotimoline ai n't cheap , you know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the future, the content will be loaded before you click!Wouldn't you have to have some thiotimoline [wikipedia.org] and water in your mouse for that to work?
Thiotimoline ain't cheap, you know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079244</id>
	<title>Reverse proxies</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1258021560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is not supposed to affect applications, just servers or clients, but not sure how the server will "suggest" more files without at the very least parsing the html files served (probably caching a bit, then parsing, then sending the headers with the suggestions and then the actual content).<br><br>More than in the application web serves, could be interesting to implement this in the perimetral (caching) reverse proxy servers (like in varnish and others). That won't force changing probably legacy web servers, and implementing it could add some improvement even if this new protocol isnt used by most/all clients.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not supposed to affect applications , just servers or clients , but not sure how the server will " suggest " more files without at the very least parsing the html files served ( probably caching a bit , then parsing , then sending the headers with the suggestions and then the actual content ) .More than in the application web serves , could be interesting to implement this in the perimetral ( caching ) reverse proxy servers ( like in varnish and others ) .
That wo n't force changing probably legacy web servers , and implementing it could add some improvement even if this new protocol isnt used by most/all clients .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not supposed to affect applications, just servers or clients, but not sure how the server will "suggest" more files without at the very least parsing the html files served (probably caching a bit, then parsing, then sending the headers with the suggestions and then the actual content).More than in the application web serves, could be interesting to implement this in the perimetral (caching) reverse proxy servers (like in varnish and others).
That won't force changing probably legacy web servers, and implementing it could add some improvement even if this new protocol isnt used by most/all clients.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080070</id>
	<title>Re:HTTP-NG Revisited (ten years later!)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258024200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A very, very, very, very quick look at SMUX makes me think of BEEP hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BEEP. Are you aware of it, does it compare, any comments?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A very , very , very , very quick look at SMUX makes me think of BEEP hxxp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BEEP .
Are you aware of it , does it compare , any comments ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A very, very, very, very quick look at SMUX makes me think of BEEP hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BEEP.
Are you aware of it, does it compare, any comments?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078466</id>
	<title>The question is  - why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258018740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do we need a faster http? Really?</p><p>And the whole mission statement for this thing takes me back to the days of WAP. In fact all of the optimisation stuff has already been done as part of WSP - but hey, go ahead and re-invent the wheel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do we need a faster http ?
Really ? And the whole mission statement for this thing takes me back to the days of WAP .
In fact all of the optimisation stuff has already been done as part of WSP - but hey , go ahead and re-invent the wheel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do we need a faster http?
Really?And the whole mission statement for this thing takes me back to the days of WAP.
In fact all of the optimisation stuff has already been done as part of WSP - but hey, go ahead and re-invent the wheel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079698</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot could use the help</title>
	<author>grmoc</author>
	<datestamp>1258023000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Heh, no it doesn't mean you have to go along with it...<br>But to answer your question, it is quite different from gzipping the pages!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Heh , no it does n't mean you have to go along with it...But to answer your question , it is quite different from gzipping the pages !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heh, no it doesn't mean you have to go along with it...But to answer your question, it is quite different from gzipping the pages!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080872</id>
	<title>Naysayers be naysaying</title>
	<author>wayward\_bruce</author>
	<datestamp>1258027440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I love it how the know-it-alls jump and say "no, CSS/ads/JavaScript/AJAX/ is guilty".

Timothy's post claims an observed twofold increase in speed in practice.  Unless you want to flat-out say that he is lying, your arguments are invalid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love it how the know-it-alls jump and say " no , CSS/ads/JavaScript/AJAX/ is guilty " .
Timothy 's post claims an observed twofold increase in speed in practice .
Unless you want to flat-out say that he is lying , your arguments are invalid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love it how the know-it-alls jump and say "no, CSS/ads/JavaScript/AJAX/ is guilty".
Timothy's post claims an observed twofold increase in speed in practice.
Unless you want to flat-out say that he is lying, your arguments are invalid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079766</id>
	<title>Should have happened long ago</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258023240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am with Linus on this one<br>Linus is right<br>The man makes sense<br>He is absolutely correct on this one</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am with Linus on this oneLinus is rightThe man makes senseHe is absolutely correct on this one</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am with Linus on this oneLinus is rightThe man makes senseHe is absolutely correct on this one</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30121442</id>
	<title>Re:While we're at it ...</title>
	<author>Larry\_The\_Canary</author>
	<datestamp>1258365960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I stopped reading as soon as you said that you used table layouts, here's why:<br><br>Solution 1:<br>&lt;table&gt;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td colspan="2"&gt;&lt;table id="header"&gt;...&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;table id="menu"&gt;...&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;table id="content"&gt;...&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.....  OK I'm so f*cking annoyed already just making this example that I can guarantee that you're annoyed reading it!<br><br>Solution 2:<br>&lt;div id="header"&gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... &lt;/div&gt;<br>&lt;div id="menu"&gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... &lt;/div&gt;<br>&lt;div id="content"&gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... &lt;/div&gt;<br>&lt;div id="footer"&gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... &lt;/div&gt;<br><br>Not only is it painfully obvious that the non-table solution is easier to create, read and understand but it is also reusable since a different look can be applied to it by just changing a style sheet.<br><br>So please, take another shot at justifying table layouts.  (HINT: Being too lazy to learn and understand the box model is not a good reason)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I stopped reading as soon as you said that you used table layouts , here 's why : Solution 1 :       .. .       ........... OK I 'm so f * cking annoyed already just making this example that I can guarantee that you 're annoyed reading it ! Solution 2 : ... ... ... ... Not only is it painfully obvious that the non-table solution is easier to create , read and understand but it is also reusable since a different look can be applied to it by just changing a style sheet.So please , take another shot at justifying table layouts .
( HINT : Being too lazy to learn and understand the box model is not a good reason )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I stopped reading as soon as you said that you used table layouts, here's why:Solution 1:
      ...
      ...........  OK I'm so f*cking annoyed already just making this example that I can guarantee that you're annoyed reading it!Solution 2: ...  ...  ...  ... Not only is it painfully obvious that the non-table solution is easier to create, read and understand but it is also reusable since a different look can be applied to it by just changing a style sheet.So please, take another shot at justifying table layouts.
(HINT: Being too lazy to learn and understand the box model is not a good reason)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078282</id>
	<title>But can't you see how SPeeDY will solve ALL these?</title>
	<author>Colin Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1258018020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>?</p><p>No. Neither can I. It will let them *push* adverts at you in parallel though... *before you asked for them*</p><p>Google wanting more efficient advert distribution... No, never...</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>? No .
Neither can I. It will let them * push * adverts at you in parallel though... * before you asked for them * Google wanting more efficient advert distribution... No , never.. .  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>?No.
Neither can I. It will let them *push* adverts at you in parallel though... *before you asked for them*Google wanting more efficient advert distribution... No, never...
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30081250</id>
	<title>Re:While we're at it ...</title>
	<author>twostix</author>
	<datestamp>1258029240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You just re-invented flash...</htmltext>
<tokenext>You just re-invented flash.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You just re-invented flash...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078374</id>
	<title>Re:Before you click!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258018320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>content will be loaded before you click!</p></div><p>Sounds like those "dialup accelerators" from back in the '90s<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the ones that would silently spider every link on the page you're currently viewing in order to build a predictive cache.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>content will be loaded before you click ! Sounds like those " dialup accelerators " from back in the '90s ... the ones that would silently spider every link on the page you 're currently viewing in order to build a predictive cache .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>content will be loaded before you click!Sounds like those "dialup accelerators" from back in the '90s ... the ones that would silently spider every link on the page you're currently viewing in order to build a predictive cache.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30089198</id>
	<title>Re:How about downsides...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258139040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Compression absolutely makes sense.  Processing power is growing at a much, much greater rate than bandwidth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Compression absolutely makes sense .
Processing power is growing at a much , much greater rate than bandwidth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Compression absolutely makes sense.
Processing power is growing at a much, much greater rate than bandwidth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080046</id>
	<title>SPDY</title>
	<author>rgviza</author>
	<datestamp>1258024140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cache control 4tw. A lot of the user perception problems SPDY is trying to solve can be solved by utilizing already-existing protocol features and the farms of cache servers at ISPs for your active content.</p><p>The latency differences between a user going all the way to your server and grabbing your content vs. going to ISP's cache server to get it can be huge when you consider a separate connection for each part of the page. When coupled with the decreased response time (checking a cache file and responding with a 304 is a lot easier on your server than pulling your content out of a database, formatting it and sending the entire page) makes a huge end-user perception difference. It also frees resources on your web server faster because you are sending 20-30 bytes instead of  x kb. The faster your server can get rid of that connection the better.</p><p>Doing this reduces the load on your server(especially connection utilization),  your bandwidth utilization, speeds up the download of your page (since it avoids the need to leave the ISP for your content download) and generally makes you a better network citizen.</p><p>Of course this requires developers that understand the protocol.</p><p>What I want to know is will ISP cache servers will have this implemented?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cache control 4tw .
A lot of the user perception problems SPDY is trying to solve can be solved by utilizing already-existing protocol features and the farms of cache servers at ISPs for your active content.The latency differences between a user going all the way to your server and grabbing your content vs. going to ISP 's cache server to get it can be huge when you consider a separate connection for each part of the page .
When coupled with the decreased response time ( checking a cache file and responding with a 304 is a lot easier on your server than pulling your content out of a database , formatting it and sending the entire page ) makes a huge end-user perception difference .
It also frees resources on your web server faster because you are sending 20-30 bytes instead of x kb .
The faster your server can get rid of that connection the better.Doing this reduces the load on your server ( especially connection utilization ) , your bandwidth utilization , speeds up the download of your page ( since it avoids the need to leave the ISP for your content download ) and generally makes you a better network citizen.Of course this requires developers that understand the protocol.What I want to know is will ISP cache servers will have this implemented ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cache control 4tw.
A lot of the user perception problems SPDY is trying to solve can be solved by utilizing already-existing protocol features and the farms of cache servers at ISPs for your active content.The latency differences between a user going all the way to your server and grabbing your content vs. going to ISP's cache server to get it can be huge when you consider a separate connection for each part of the page.
When coupled with the decreased response time (checking a cache file and responding with a 304 is a lot easier on your server than pulling your content out of a database, formatting it and sending the entire page) makes a huge end-user perception difference.
It also frees resources on your web server faster because you are sending 20-30 bytes instead of  x kb.
The faster your server can get rid of that connection the better.Doing this reduces the load on your server(especially connection utilization),  your bandwidth utilization, speeds up the download of your page (since it avoids the need to leave the ISP for your content download) and generally makes you a better network citizen.Of course this requires developers that understand the protocol.What I want to know is will ISP cache servers will have this implemented?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080982</id>
	<title>Re:Solving the wrong problem</title>
	<author>ProfessionalCookie</author>
	<datestamp>1258027920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or even being able to assign classes to other classes:<p> <tt><nobr> <wbr></nobr>.main-font{font-family:Times, serif}<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>.headline {class:'main-font';color:green}<br> <br>
#news {class:'main-font';}<br>
#side-header {class:'headline'}
</tt>
</p><p>
That would be super hand most days</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or even being able to assign classes to other classes : .main-font { font-family : Times , serif } .headline { class : 'main-font ' ; color : green } # news { class : 'main-font ' ; } # side-header { class : 'headline ' } That would be super hand most days</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or even being able to assign classes to other classes:  .main-font{font-family:Times, serif} .headline {class:'main-font';color:green} 
#news {class:'main-font';}
#side-header {class:'headline'}


That would be super hand most days</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080502</id>
	<title>Bug 487638 - status bar blames wrong resource...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258025880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least some of the perception about what is the bottleneck is related to browsers reporting the wrong cause.  This should be improved in Firefox 3.6, see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=487638 for more details.</p><p>Certainly it's important for Google and others to ensure that our/their servers are responsive, but it's also useful for browsers not to mislead users.</p><p>(Full disclosure: Google is my employer.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least some of the perception about what is the bottleneck is related to browsers reporting the wrong cause .
This should be improved in Firefox 3.6 , see https : //bugzilla.mozilla.org/show \ _bug.cgi ? id = 487638 for more details.Certainly it 's important for Google and others to ensure that our/their servers are responsive , but it 's also useful for browsers not to mislead users .
( Full disclosure : Google is my employer .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least some of the perception about what is the bottleneck is related to browsers reporting the wrong cause.
This should be improved in Firefox 3.6, see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=487638 for more details.Certainly it's important for Google and others to ensure that our/their servers are responsive, but it's also useful for browsers not to mislead users.
(Full disclosure: Google is my employer.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079796</id>
	<title>Re:Application Layer...</title>
	<author>grmoc</author>
	<datestamp>1258023300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, it means that both sides have to speak the protocol.<br>That is why we want to engage the community to start to look at this work!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , it means that both sides have to speak the protocol.That is why we want to engage the community to start to look at this work !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, it means that both sides have to speak the protocol.That is why we want to engage the community to start to look at this work!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30082928</id>
	<title>Re:Would appreciate it if instead...</title>
	<author>jackchance</author>
	<datestamp>1258041660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>reminds me of <a href="http://xkcd.com/619/" title="xkcd.com">this</a> [xkcd.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>reminds me of this [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>reminds me of this [xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30082120</id>
	<title>Re:Before you click!</title>
	<author>mccrew</author>
	<datestamp>1258034460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Are the headers really that big?  You can compress the content with gzip automatically - I'm surprised that header compression makes a difference.  Generally, the header is a small fraction of the size of the response.</p></div><p>Did you RTFA?</p><p>"Header compression resulted in an ~88\% reduction in the size of request headers and an ~85\% reduction in the size of response headers. On the lower-bandwidth DSL link, in which the upload link is only 375 Kbps, request header compression in particular, led to significant page load time improvements..."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are the headers really that big ?
You can compress the content with gzip automatically - I 'm surprised that header compression makes a difference .
Generally , the header is a small fraction of the size of the response.Did you RTFA ?
" Header compression resulted in an ~ 88 \ % reduction in the size of request headers and an ~ 85 \ % reduction in the size of response headers .
On the lower-bandwidth DSL link , in which the upload link is only 375 Kbps , request header compression in particular , led to significant page load time improvements... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are the headers really that big?
You can compress the content with gzip automatically - I'm surprised that header compression makes a difference.
Generally, the header is a small fraction of the size of the response.Did you RTFA?
"Header compression resulted in an ~88\% reduction in the size of request headers and an ~85\% reduction in the size of response headers.
On the lower-bandwidth DSL link, in which the upload link is only 375 Kbps, request header compression in particular, led to significant page load time improvements..."
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30081720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078668</id>
	<title>Re:Before you click!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258019400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a firefox addon to do just that. Some caching proxy servers can also do the same thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a firefox addon to do just that .
Some caching proxy servers can also do the same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a firefox addon to do just that.
Some caching proxy servers can also do the same thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078480</id>
	<title>SPDY is technically nonsensical</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258018740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Single request per connection. Because HTTP can only fetch one resource at a time (HTTP pipelining helps, but still enforces only a FIFO queue)"</p><p>WTF you do realize that TCP is a head-of-line blocking protocol right?  You can layer whatever the hell you want into a TCP channel and its still bound to TCPs shortcommings.  If google really wanted to be productive they would leverge SCTP streams rather than reinventing crap that will never be optimal anyway... haha they even list this under "previous approaches" as if its somehow "legacy"</p><p>"Exclusively client-initiated requests. "<br>Nonsense, this was done in netscape 4.x</p><p>"Uncompressed request and response headers."<br>"Redundant headers"</p><p>gzip anyone?</p><p>"Optional data compression. Content should always be sent in a compressed format"</p><p>Its nice that google thinks it can dictate to operators.</p><p>If google really wanted to help speed up the fricking web they would discontinue adscense and google analyitics which adds extra RTTs to god knows what percentage of the entire web.</p><p>The real problem is all the commercial **CRAP** and too few selfless operators working to help people without expecting back in return.</p><p>I've never had to wait to bring up a wikipedia page.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Single request per connection .
Because HTTP can only fetch one resource at a time ( HTTP pipelining helps , but still enforces only a FIFO queue ) " WTF you do realize that TCP is a head-of-line blocking protocol right ?
You can layer whatever the hell you want into a TCP channel and its still bound to TCPs shortcommings .
If google really wanted to be productive they would leverge SCTP streams rather than reinventing crap that will never be optimal anyway... haha they even list this under " previous approaches " as if its somehow " legacy " " Exclusively client-initiated requests .
" Nonsense , this was done in netscape 4.x " Uncompressed request and response headers .
" " Redundant headers " gzip anyone ?
" Optional data compression .
Content should always be sent in a compressed format " Its nice that google thinks it can dictate to operators.If google really wanted to help speed up the fricking web they would discontinue adscense and google analyitics which adds extra RTTs to god knows what percentage of the entire web.The real problem is all the commercial * * CRAP * * and too few selfless operators working to help people without expecting back in return.I 've never had to wait to bring up a wikipedia page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Single request per connection.
Because HTTP can only fetch one resource at a time (HTTP pipelining helps, but still enforces only a FIFO queue)"WTF you do realize that TCP is a head-of-line blocking protocol right?
You can layer whatever the hell you want into a TCP channel and its still bound to TCPs shortcommings.
If google really wanted to be productive they would leverge SCTP streams rather than reinventing crap that will never be optimal anyway... haha they even list this under "previous approaches" as if its somehow "legacy""Exclusively client-initiated requests.
"Nonsense, this was done in netscape 4.x"Uncompressed request and response headers.
""Redundant headers"gzip anyone?
"Optional data compression.
Content should always be sent in a compressed format"Its nice that google thinks it can dictate to operators.If google really wanted to help speed up the fricking web they would discontinue adscense and google analyitics which adds extra RTTs to god knows what percentage of the entire web.The real problem is all the commercial **CRAP** and too few selfless operators working to help people without expecting back in return.I've never had to wait to bring up a wikipedia page.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080276</id>
	<title>Re:Oh that's wonderful</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258024920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I want my old Internet back.</p></div><p>ME TOO!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I want my old Internet back.ME TOO !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want my old Internet back.ME TOO!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078050</id>
	<title>Cloud gaming</title>
	<author>should\_be\_linear</author>
	<datestamp>1258017000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everything plays together nicely for "cloud-gaming" statrups. This will solve, at least to some extent, one of their hardest problems, for free. Except if Google itself is not after exect same market. They never mentioned how Chrome OS is supposed to provide gaiming to users<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everything plays together nicely for " cloud-gaming " statrups .
This will solve , at least to some extent , one of their hardest problems , for free .
Except if Google itself is not after exect same market .
They never mentioned how Chrome OS is supposed to provide gaiming to users .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everything plays together nicely for "cloud-gaming" statrups.
This will solve, at least to some extent, one of their hardest problems, for free.
Except if Google itself is not after exect same market.
They never mentioned how Chrome OS is supposed to provide gaiming to users ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080116</id>
	<title>Re:Solving the wrong problem</title>
	<author>OzRoy</author>
	<datestamp>1258024380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems that people have been making very similar arguments to this about all aspects of computing for decades. Until recently it was always with the amount of memory or CPU speed.</p><p>Basically it's summarised as "Why should we make X run Y faster when we can just optimise Y?"</p><p>It's just a ridiculous argument. Obviously you should always try and optimise the software, but why shouldn't everything else run faster as well?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems that people have been making very similar arguments to this about all aspects of computing for decades .
Until recently it was always with the amount of memory or CPU speed.Basically it 's summarised as " Why should we make X run Y faster when we can just optimise Y ?
" It 's just a ridiculous argument .
Obviously you should always try and optimise the software , but why should n't everything else run faster as well ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems that people have been making very similar arguments to this about all aspects of computing for decades.
Until recently it was always with the amount of memory or CPU speed.Basically it's summarised as "Why should we make X run Y faster when we can just optimise Y?
"It's just a ridiculous argument.
Obviously you should always try and optimise the software, but why shouldn't everything else run faster as well?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077928</id>
	<title>and faster still..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258016640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>remove flash, java applets ad's<br>20X faster!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>remove flash , java applets ad's20X faster !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>remove flash, java applets ad's20X faster!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079666</id>
	<title>Re:Before you click!</title>
	<author>grmoc</author>
	<datestamp>1258022880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its not the same, really...<br>SPDY could do prefetching (in which case it'd be server push, instead of a new pull), but mainly what it does is it lets a lot of requests use the same connection, and does compression on the HTTP headers.<br>Thats essentially almost all of the current performance advantage (for today).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its not the same , really...SPDY could do prefetching ( in which case it 'd be server push , instead of a new pull ) , but mainly what it does is it lets a lot of requests use the same connection , and does compression on the HTTP headers.Thats essentially almost all of the current performance advantage ( for today ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its not the same, really...SPDY could do prefetching (in which case it'd be server push, instead of a new pull), but mainly what it does is it lets a lot of requests use the same connection, and does compression on the HTTP headers.Thats essentially almost all of the current performance advantage (for today).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077998</id>
	<title>Just turn off image loading</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258016880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can generally surf the web ten times or faster if you just<br>1) Turn off image loading<br>2) Turn off Javascript<br>3) Turn off Java<br>4) Turn off plugins</p><p>yeah, yeah... I know... It's called "lynx"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can generally surf the web ten times or faster if you just1 ) Turn off image loading2 ) Turn off Javascript3 ) Turn off Java4 ) Turn off pluginsyeah , yeah... I know... It 's called " lynx "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can generally surf the web ten times or faster if you just1) Turn off image loading2) Turn off Javascript3) Turn off Java4) Turn off pluginsyeah, yeah... I know... It's called "lynx"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30089704</id>
	<title>Re:and faster still..</title>
	<author>cffrost</author>
	<datestamp>1258140840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about naming names so those inclined can join in the fun?<br> <br>
Enough "lost customers" and perhaps this alleged CEO and his ilk will start fuck-giving.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about naming names so those inclined can join in the fun ?
Enough " lost customers " and perhaps this alleged CEO and his ilk will start fuck-giving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about naming names so those inclined can join in the fun?
Enough "lost customers" and perhaps this alleged CEO and his ilk will start fuck-giving.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30081610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30081954</id>
	<title>Re:Would appreciate it if instead...</title>
	<author>illumin8</author>
	<datestamp>1258033500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>you got my new Droid to be able to dial hands-free and sync with Outlook. Would help me out a bunch more than faster http. No, really...</p></div></blockquote><p>Not to rub it in or anything... but iPhone does this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>you got my new Droid to be able to dial hands-free and sync with Outlook .
Would help me out a bunch more than faster http .
No , really...Not to rub it in or anything... but iPhone does this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you got my new Droid to be able to dial hands-free and sync with Outlook.
Would help me out a bunch more than faster http.
No, really...Not to rub it in or anything... but iPhone does this.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078618</id>
	<title>Re:Solving the wrong problem</title>
	<author>Idbar</author>
	<datestamp>1258019220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree with you, most of the times they address the wrong problems because they want to avoid being blamed. Doing research on TCP congestion control mechanisms, realized that ISPs pushed all the problems towards the borders over dimensioning networks. Now core network traffic remains low, while home routers can't handle traffic and drop the packets due to ridiculous access speeds.<br> <br>
Besides, I want to be able to take advantage of the Internet without requiring 2+ cores and battery draining GHz of speed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you , most of the times they address the wrong problems because they want to avoid being blamed .
Doing research on TCP congestion control mechanisms , realized that ISPs pushed all the problems towards the borders over dimensioning networks .
Now core network traffic remains low , while home routers ca n't handle traffic and drop the packets due to ridiculous access speeds .
Besides , I want to be able to take advantage of the Internet without requiring 2 + cores and battery draining GHz of speed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you, most of the times they address the wrong problems because they want to avoid being blamed.
Doing research on TCP congestion control mechanisms, realized that ISPs pushed all the problems towards the borders over dimensioning networks.
Now core network traffic remains low, while home routers can't handle traffic and drop the packets due to ridiculous access speeds.
Besides, I want to be able to take advantage of the Internet without requiring 2+ cores and battery draining GHz of speed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078012</id>
	<title>Akamai?</title>
	<author>ruiner13</author>
	<datestamp>1258016880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't this making what Akamai does free (and likely pissing them off royally)?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this making what Akamai does free ( and likely pissing them off royally ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this making what Akamai does free (and likely pissing them off royally)?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078298</id>
	<title>Re:Solving the wrong problem</title>
	<author>mea37</author>
	<datestamp>1258018080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So... when you try to load slashdot, the requests that fetch the content don't get rolling until the request that fetches the ad finishes... and SPDY allows all of the requests to be processed concurrently so the content doesn't have to wait for the ad...</p><p>How is that solving the wrong problem again?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So... when you try to load slashdot , the requests that fetch the content do n't get rolling until the request that fetches the ad finishes... and SPDY allows all of the requests to be processed concurrently so the content does n't have to wait for the ad...How is that solving the wrong problem again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So... when you try to load slashdot, the requests that fetch the content don't get rolling until the request that fetches the ad finishes... and SPDY allows all of the requests to be processed concurrently so the content doesn't have to wait for the ad...How is that solving the wrong problem again?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30081342</id>
	<title>Re:Before you click!</title>
	<author>Arthur Grumbine</author>
	<datestamp>1258029900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it also compresses all text and images to about 10\% original size.</p></div><p>Who knew that using smaller fonts reduced page-size/load-time? Oh, the wonders you bring us, Netscape!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it also compresses all text and images to about 10 \ % original size.Who knew that using smaller fonts reduced page-size/load-time ?
Oh , the wonders you bring us , Netscape !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it also compresses all text and images to about 10\% original size.Who knew that using smaller fonts reduced page-size/load-time?
Oh, the wonders you bring us, Netscape!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30083212</id>
	<title>Re:A novel idea</title>
	<author>jeffstar</author>
	<datestamp>1258043940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the reason that HTTP/HTML has become so popular for anything not graphics intensive (like image, video editing, cad, etc) is that nobody wants to support users on microsoft windows. there is too much other shit that can go wrong that you end up picking up the phone for. Whereas if your app is web based, they try another computer and realize their one is borked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the reason that HTTP/HTML has become so popular for anything not graphics intensive ( like image , video editing , cad , etc ) is that nobody wants to support users on microsoft windows .
there is too much other shit that can go wrong that you end up picking up the phone for .
Whereas if your app is web based , they try another computer and realize their one is borked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the reason that HTTP/HTML has become so popular for anything not graphics intensive (like image, video editing, cad, etc) is that nobody wants to support users on microsoft windows.
there is too much other shit that can go wrong that you end up picking up the phone for.
Whereas if your app is web based, they try another computer and realize their one is borked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078112</id>
	<title>Re:Akamai?</title>
	<author>TooMuchToDo</author>
	<datestamp>1258017240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>No. Akamai gives boxes to ISPs that cache Akamai's customer's content closer to the ISP's customers. Akamai then uses logic they've put together into DNS to redirect requests to the appliance closest to the request.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
Akamai gives boxes to ISPs that cache Akamai 's customer 's content closer to the ISP 's customers .
Akamai then uses logic they 've put together into DNS to redirect requests to the appliance closest to the request .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
Akamai gives boxes to ISPs that cache Akamai's customer's content closer to the ISP's customers.
Akamai then uses logic they've put together into DNS to redirect requests to the appliance closest to the request.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079322</id>
	<title>Re:How about telling Analytics to take a hike?</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1258021860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;Remember when a 768kbps DSL line was whizzo fast?</p><p>I'm on a 768k connection you insensitive clod!  And it IS whizzo fast, compared to my other 50k Dialup ISP</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; Remember when a 768kbps DSL line was whizzo fast ? I 'm on a 768k connection you insensitive clod !
And it IS whizzo fast , compared to my other 50k Dialup ISP</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;Remember when a 768kbps DSL line was whizzo fast?I'm on a 768k connection you insensitive clod!
And it IS whizzo fast, compared to my other 50k Dialup ISP</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079230</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot could use the help</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1258021500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not +1 Funny.  Parent is +1 Informative.  On the same wifi network, my iPhone took three minutes to render<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. while my dual core lappy rendered it in about 10 seconds (count it; it's actually a long time).  BTW, on my laptop, FF grayed out for that time.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.'s JS code sucks hard.  I haven't looked, but I'm seriously starting to believe that it's got distributed computing code built in.  Both machines loaded other webpages fine before and after.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not + 1 Funny .
Parent is + 1 Informative .
On the same wifi network , my iPhone took three minutes to render / .
while my dual core lappy rendered it in about 10 seconds ( count it ; it 's actually a long time ) .
BTW , on my laptop , FF grayed out for that time .
/. 's JS code sucks hard .
I have n't looked , but I 'm seriously starting to believe that it 's got distributed computing code built in .
Both machines loaded other webpages fine before and after .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not +1 Funny.
Parent is +1 Informative.
On the same wifi network, my iPhone took three minutes to render /.
while my dual core lappy rendered it in about 10 seconds (count it; it's actually a long time).
BTW, on my laptop, FF grayed out for that time.
/.'s JS code sucks hard.
I haven't looked, but I'm seriously starting to believe that it's got distributed computing code built in.
Both machines loaded other webpages fine before and after.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080578</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot could use the help</title>
	<author>nilbog</author>
	<datestamp>1258026180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well now they could transfer gzipped pages over SPDY.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well now they could transfer gzipped pages over SPDY .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well now they could transfer gzipped pages over SPDY.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078592</id>
	<title>Re:While we're at it ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258019160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Something else that grinds my gears is why is HTML pull only?</p><p>It was a good first try. Why do we persist with this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Something else that grinds my gears is why is HTML pull only ? It was a good first try .
Why do we persist with this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something else that grinds my gears is why is HTML pull only?It was a good first try.
Why do we persist with this?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080998</id>
	<title>Um, humor me here...</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1258027980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But doesn't this sound like another protocol?</p><p>So why not just make HTTP into SPDY?</p><p>Actually, why not give me a way to prevent the offensive ad loads, especially the <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703298004574459864068290026.html" title="wsj.com">hidden</a> [wsj.com]/cloaked ads?  All these do is slow down my page load and cheat the advertisers.  Wait, this is a 50/50 win for me...  Well, maybe, but it still makes me wait for nothing I even suspect I want.</p><p>A pox on all of them, I say.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But does n't this sound like another protocol ? So why not just make HTTP into SPDY ? Actually , why not give me a way to prevent the offensive ad loads , especially the hidden [ wsj.com ] /cloaked ads ?
All these do is slow down my page load and cheat the advertisers .
Wait , this is a 50/50 win for me... Well , maybe , but it still makes me wait for nothing I even suspect I want.A pox on all of them , I say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But doesn't this sound like another protocol?So why not just make HTTP into SPDY?Actually, why not give me a way to prevent the offensive ad loads, especially the hidden [wsj.com]/cloaked ads?
All these do is slow down my page load and cheat the advertisers.
Wait, this is a 50/50 win for me...  Well, maybe, but it still makes me wait for nothing I even suspect I want.A pox on all of them, I say.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30089864</id>
	<title>Re:How about telling Analytics to take a hike?</title>
	<author>umdenken</author>
	<datestamp>1258141440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I realized a little while ago that only techies like us pay attention to the "completed X of Y items...", and get aggravated over the unfinished state of the web page.

As long as the page appears to be finished loading, then it *is* finished loading as far 95\% of people are concerned.  And this isn't so bad - it means the extra time to load analytics doesn't really matter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I realized a little while ago that only techies like us pay attention to the " completed X of Y items... " , and get aggravated over the unfinished state of the web page .
As long as the page appears to be finished loading , then it * is * finished loading as far 95 \ % of people are concerned .
And this is n't so bad - it means the extra time to load analytics does n't really matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I realized a little while ago that only techies like us pay attention to the "completed X of Y items...", and get aggravated over the unfinished state of the web page.
As long as the page appears to be finished loading, then it *is* finished loading as far 95\% of people are concerned.
And this isn't so bad - it means the extra time to load analytics doesn't really matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080290</id>
	<title>I don't want new protocols from Google</title>
	<author>petrus4</author>
	<datestamp>1258024980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've already seen the XML based, opaque mess that is Google Wave.</p><p>In an ideal world, corporations would not be able to have any say whatsoever in the development of collectively used protocols or languages.  The suits are already destroying HTML.</p><p>Destroying things for the sake of money, is the only thing that suits know how to do.  If you want to actually create something, and create something which is genuinely beneficial and positive in nature, the profit motive has to be removed from the equation.</p><p>People also need to stop believing the lies that they are told, that the profit motive is a necessary part of the process.  It isn't.  We see software development occurring on a daily basis, that the profit motive has absolutely nothing to do with.  We also saw communication systems (in terms of the bulletin boards) being developed in the past, which were entirely non-commercial in motive and intent, as well.</p><p>Before you develop stars in your eyes about worthless things like Google Wave, try realising that none of the functionality it offers, is genuinely new at all.  It is simply an obfuscated hybrid of a number of pre-existing protocols, which work far more effectively on an individual basis.</p><p>Instead of the idea advocated here, try using a text-based browser (such as links) for specific tasks, which bypasses all of the advertising, and massively reduces the amount of necessary bandwidth used.</p><p>Instead of Google Wave, use IRC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've already seen the XML based , opaque mess that is Google Wave.In an ideal world , corporations would not be able to have any say whatsoever in the development of collectively used protocols or languages .
The suits are already destroying HTML.Destroying things for the sake of money , is the only thing that suits know how to do .
If you want to actually create something , and create something which is genuinely beneficial and positive in nature , the profit motive has to be removed from the equation.People also need to stop believing the lies that they are told , that the profit motive is a necessary part of the process .
It is n't .
We see software development occurring on a daily basis , that the profit motive has absolutely nothing to do with .
We also saw communication systems ( in terms of the bulletin boards ) being developed in the past , which were entirely non-commercial in motive and intent , as well.Before you develop stars in your eyes about worthless things like Google Wave , try realising that none of the functionality it offers , is genuinely new at all .
It is simply an obfuscated hybrid of a number of pre-existing protocols , which work far more effectively on an individual basis.Instead of the idea advocated here , try using a text-based browser ( such as links ) for specific tasks , which bypasses all of the advertising , and massively reduces the amount of necessary bandwidth used.Instead of Google Wave , use IRC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've already seen the XML based, opaque mess that is Google Wave.In an ideal world, corporations would not be able to have any say whatsoever in the development of collectively used protocols or languages.
The suits are already destroying HTML.Destroying things for the sake of money, is the only thing that suits know how to do.
If you want to actually create something, and create something which is genuinely beneficial and positive in nature, the profit motive has to be removed from the equation.People also need to stop believing the lies that they are told, that the profit motive is a necessary part of the process.
It isn't.
We see software development occurring on a daily basis, that the profit motive has absolutely nothing to do with.
We also saw communication systems (in terms of the bulletin boards) being developed in the past, which were entirely non-commercial in motive and intent, as well.Before you develop stars in your eyes about worthless things like Google Wave, try realising that none of the functionality it offers, is genuinely new at all.
It is simply an obfuscated hybrid of a number of pre-existing protocols, which work far more effectively on an individual basis.Instead of the idea advocated here, try using a text-based browser (such as links) for specific tasks, which bypasses all of the advertising, and massively reduces the amount of necessary bandwidth used.Instead of Google Wave, use IRC.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079356</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot could use the help</title>
	<author>Minwee</author>
	<datestamp>1258021920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> Like maybe they can remove the sleep() statements.</p></div> </blockquote><p>The technical term for that is a <a href="http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/The-Speedup-Loop.aspx" title="thedailywtf.com">Speedup Loop</a> [thedailywtf.com].  All good software developers use them... for certain values of 'good'.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like maybe they can remove the sleep ( ) statements .
The technical term for that is a Speedup Loop [ thedailywtf.com ] .
All good software developers use them... for certain values of 'good' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Like maybe they can remove the sleep() statements.
The technical term for that is a Speedup Loop [thedailywtf.com].
All good software developers use them... for certain values of 'good'.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077954</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30088068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30083218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30085000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30089198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30083810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30081342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30082778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30082928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30084426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30099590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30086776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30081750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30089864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30082152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30091058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30081620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30081250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30081954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30100376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30081720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30082870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30081610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30089704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30082006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30082116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30081416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30082148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30081720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30082120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30082782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30086030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30083212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30121442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30084924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1943254_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1943254.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078466
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1943254.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078556
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30082782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30089864
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1943254.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30082006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30083810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30081610
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30089704
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1943254.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30081620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30083218
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1943254.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30089198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30084924
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1943254.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080272
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1943254.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078112
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079102
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1943254.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078586
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1943254.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30081954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30082928
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1943254.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079232
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1943254.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078612
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1943254.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078332
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30099590
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30082152
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30088068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079684
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1943254.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30086030
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1943254.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078858
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1943254.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080046
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1943254.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078010
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1943254.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079184
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1943254.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30081750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30081250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30081416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080394
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30121442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078818
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1943254.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30086776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078158
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1943254.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078294
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080982
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30100376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30082116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078176
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30085000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078380
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1943254.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30077912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078374
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078952
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30082148
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30081342
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079666
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30081720
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30082120
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30082870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078998
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080748
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1943254.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30084426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30082778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30091058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30083212
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1943254.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30080470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30078756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079796
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1943254.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1943254.30079244
</commentlist>
</conversation>
