<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_08_194229</id>
	<title>Google Chrome Extensions Are Now Available</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1260259260000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>kai\_hiwatari writes <i>"The <a href="https://chrome.google.com/extensions/">Google Chrome Extensions site</a> is now open for Windows and Linux users &mdash; but not yet for Mac &mdash; and contains around 300 extensions. AdBlock is not yet available, however. (The closest thing to it is <a href="https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/fkkedmmdcjakdoeffbpakigjpjgkkfjj">Adsweep</a>, but right now it seems to be broken. Who wants to take this on?) Does the availability of extensions put Chrome at risk of becoming bloated, like many complain about with Firefox?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>kai \ _hiwatari writes " The Google Chrome Extensions site is now open for Windows and Linux users    but not yet for Mac    and contains around 300 extensions .
AdBlock is not yet available , however .
( The closest thing to it is Adsweep , but right now it seems to be broken .
Who wants to take this on ?
) Does the availability of extensions put Chrome at risk of becoming bloated , like many complain about with Firefox ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>kai\_hiwatari writes "The Google Chrome Extensions site is now open for Windows and Linux users — but not yet for Mac — and contains around 300 extensions.
AdBlock is not yet available, however.
(The closest thing to it is Adsweep, but right now it seems to be broken.
Who wants to take this on?
) Does the availability of extensions put Chrome at risk of becoming bloated, like many complain about with Firefox?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371232</id>
	<title>Re:Take on AdBlock?</title>
	<author>Nevyn</author>
	<datestamp>1260271020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>As someone who makes his living selling content through the Internet, I want people to think several times before building a tool like AdBlock.</p></div>
</blockquote><p> You are speaking to the wrong people, IMO. NoScript/AdBlock/etc. are there because users want them. So you are saying "please don't do what users want, because it'll make me more money". Well, sucks to be you then.
</p><p> If you really want to make a difference and see Ads be viable on the web. N years from now<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you need to speak to "most" of the large content providers. For instance my wife is pretty clueful and had happily not been using NoScript/etc.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... until recently when she hit usatoday and a giant popup came up and refused to go away (so she couldn't read the content). Now she has NoScript installed and only approved sites can run any JS.
</p><p> It's the same with TV, 5 minutes of commercials every 10 minutes (33\%) is just way too much and their real customers fought back<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... so now they get 0\% ads from a growing percentage of people. Yeh, that implies bad things for the future of TV, but then in many ways nothing really is better than what was there before.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who makes his living selling content through the Internet , I want people to think several times before building a tool like AdBlock .
You are speaking to the wrong people , IMO .
NoScript/AdBlock/etc. are there because users want them .
So you are saying " please do n't do what users want , because it 'll make me more money " .
Well , sucks to be you then .
If you really want to make a difference and see Ads be viable on the web .
N years from now ... you need to speak to " most " of the large content providers .
For instance my wife is pretty clueful and had happily not been using NoScript/etc .
... until recently when she hit usatoday and a giant popup came up and refused to go away ( so she could n't read the content ) .
Now she has NoScript installed and only approved sites can run any JS .
It 's the same with TV , 5 minutes of commercials every 10 minutes ( 33 \ % ) is just way too much and their real customers fought back ... so now they get 0 \ % ads from a growing percentage of people .
Yeh , that implies bad things for the future of TV , but then in many ways nothing really is better than what was there before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who makes his living selling content through the Internet, I want people to think several times before building a tool like AdBlock.
You are speaking to the wrong people, IMO.
NoScript/AdBlock/etc. are there because users want them.
So you are saying "please don't do what users want, because it'll make me more money".
Well, sucks to be you then.
If you really want to make a difference and see Ads be viable on the web.
N years from now ... you need to speak to "most" of the large content providers.
For instance my wife is pretty clueful and had happily not been using NoScript/etc.
... until recently when she hit usatoday and a giant popup came up and refused to go away (so she couldn't read the content).
Now she has NoScript installed and only approved sites can run any JS.
It's the same with TV, 5 minutes of commercials every 10 minutes (33\%) is just way too much and their real customers fought back ... so now they get 0\% ads from a growing percentage of people.
Yeh, that implies bad things for the future of TV, but then in many ways nothing really is better than what was there before.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369920</id>
	<title>GlimmerBlocker</title>
	<author>WarpedCore</author>
	<datestamp>1260264780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you're on a Mac, GlimmerBlocker works (as it's a non-browser-dependent proxy which filters out ads).</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're on a Mac , GlimmerBlocker works ( as it 's a non-browser-dependent proxy which filters out ads ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're on a Mac, GlimmerBlocker works (as it's a non-browser-dependent proxy which filters out ads).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369842</id>
	<title>is there a proper chrome build for mac yet?</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1260264300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's some hacks but nothing that I've seen fully supported by Google yet. It's still considered beta, no integrated update, etc. Is this still correct or can someone more clueful share some love?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's some hacks but nothing that I 've seen fully supported by Google yet .
It 's still considered beta , no integrated update , etc .
Is this still correct or can someone more clueful share some love ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's some hacks but nothing that I've seen fully supported by Google yet.
It's still considered beta, no integrated update, etc.
Is this still correct or can someone more clueful share some love?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369584</id>
	<title>No adblock</title>
	<author>Dyinobal</author>
	<datestamp>1260263100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If this doesn't get adblock I don't think it will ever make me switch, as it is I value to many of my firefox addons in my browser that I'd miss if I did change. Xmarks for example, read me later, stumbleupon....and a myriad of other extensions or addons I don't think I could do with out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If this does n't get adblock I do n't think it will ever make me switch , as it is I value to many of my firefox addons in my browser that I 'd miss if I did change .
Xmarks for example , read me later , stumbleupon....and a myriad of other extensions or addons I do n't think I could do with out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this doesn't get adblock I don't think it will ever make me switch, as it is I value to many of my firefox addons in my browser that I'd miss if I did change.
Xmarks for example, read me later, stumbleupon....and a myriad of other extensions or addons I don't think I could do with out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370576</id>
	<title>Re:SRWare Iron and firefoxs addons</title>
	<author>bencoder</author>
	<datestamp>1260268140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Chromes extensions install without you having to restart the browser. if they crash, they crash only the extension, and they are also very easy to make (just javascript). I find the extension model much better than firefox's.
<br> <br>
Unfortunately I can't stand <a href="https://bugs.webkit.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=22382" title="webkit.org">webkit's middle click behaviour</a> [webkit.org] years of middle clicking on everything are not easily forgotten, so i'm sticking with firefox.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Chromes extensions install without you having to restart the browser .
if they crash , they crash only the extension , and they are also very easy to make ( just javascript ) .
I find the extension model much better than firefox 's .
Unfortunately I ca n't stand webkit 's middle click behaviour [ webkit.org ] years of middle clicking on everything are not easily forgotten , so i 'm sticking with firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chromes extensions install without you having to restart the browser.
if they crash, they crash only the extension, and they are also very easy to make (just javascript).
I find the extension model much better than firefox's.
Unfortunately I can't stand webkit's middle click behaviour [webkit.org] years of middle clicking on everything are not easily forgotten, so i'm sticking with firefox.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369704</id>
	<title>Re:SRWare Iron and firefoxs addons</title>
	<author>mdm-adph</author>
	<datestamp>1260263700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, I think Chrome's great, too, but I don't see how you can call Firefox's extension system "incredibly clumsy" -- you install extensions, you can remove them from an addons panel, and they're upgraded automatically (which is more than you can say for Chrome, I think).  That's it -- there's nothing more to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , I think Chrome 's great , too , but I do n't see how you can call Firefox 's extension system " incredibly clumsy " -- you install extensions , you can remove them from an addons panel , and they 're upgraded automatically ( which is more than you can say for Chrome , I think ) .
That 's it -- there 's nothing more to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, I think Chrome's great, too, but I don't see how you can call Firefox's extension system "incredibly clumsy" -- you install extensions, you can remove them from an addons panel, and they're upgraded automatically (which is more than you can say for Chrome, I think).
That's it -- there's nothing more to it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30397384</id>
	<title>Re:Waiting for NoScript</title>
	<author>linzeal</author>
	<datestamp>1260454980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, the moment ads started moving I have found it impossible to surf without an aggressive ad blocking program and lately noscript/flashblock.

It could be a personal thing though, my nephew is not very computer literate but reads a lot of xtian forums with tons of religious ads for retreats, xtian couple sites and censorware for the internet.  I thought I was doing him a favor blocking the ads, but as soon as I did he found the sites barren and uncomfortable without all the crap flashing at him, so he asked me to put the ads back.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , the moment ads started moving I have found it impossible to surf without an aggressive ad blocking program and lately noscript/flashblock .
It could be a personal thing though , my nephew is not very computer literate but reads a lot of xtian forums with tons of religious ads for retreats , xtian couple sites and censorware for the internet .
I thought I was doing him a favor blocking the ads , but as soon as I did he found the sites barren and uncomfortable without all the crap flashing at him , so he asked me to put the ads back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, the moment ads started moving I have found it impossible to surf without an aggressive ad blocking program and lately noscript/flashblock.
It could be a personal thing though, my nephew is not very computer literate but reads a lot of xtian forums with tons of religious ads for retreats, xtian couple sites and censorware for the internet.
I thought I was doing him a favor blocking the ads, but as soon as I did he found the sites barren and uncomfortable without all the crap flashing at him, so he asked me to put the ads back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369852</id>
	<title>Alternate Universe Post Title: "Features."</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260264360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wish Firefox had extensions and I don't think they could impact its speed. Extensions add features, they're the solution.</p><p>Firefox is not like IE at all. It just doesn't have any good features that make me want to use it. Unlike IE, it doesn't have tabs and there are no extensions to do things like block advertising. I'm ready to try Chrome on my Mac.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish Firefox had extensions and I do n't think they could impact its speed .
Extensions add features , they 're the solution.Firefox is not like IE at all .
It just does n't have any good features that make me want to use it .
Unlike IE , it does n't have tabs and there are no extensions to do things like block advertising .
I 'm ready to try Chrome on my Mac .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish Firefox had extensions and I don't think they could impact its speed.
Extensions add features, they're the solution.Firefox is not like IE at all.
It just doesn't have any good features that make me want to use it.
Unlike IE, it doesn't have tabs and there are no extensions to do things like block advertising.
I'm ready to try Chrome on my Mac.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371780</id>
	<title>Re:Take on AdBlock?</title>
	<author>(arg!)Styopa</author>
	<datestamp>1260274020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I promise to let you sell my eyeballs for your income, if you promise to end:<br>- popup ads<br>- odd-shaped flash adds that don't just have a 'close' button<br>- popunder ads<br>- ads with sound<br>- ads grossly inappropriate to the site ("Sasha Grey's new gangbang adventure (with pic)" on a kids site...nice)</p><p>Face it, YOUR income depends on your ads being unobtrusive enough to drive away viewers.  The current demand for adblocker suggests you've overshot, now pay the consequences.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I promise to let you sell my eyeballs for your income , if you promise to end : - popup ads- odd-shaped flash adds that do n't just have a 'close ' button- popunder ads- ads with sound- ads grossly inappropriate to the site ( " Sasha Grey 's new gangbang adventure ( with pic ) " on a kids site...nice ) Face it , YOUR income depends on your ads being unobtrusive enough to drive away viewers .
The current demand for adblocker suggests you 've overshot , now pay the consequences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I promise to let you sell my eyeballs for your income, if you promise to end:- popup ads- odd-shaped flash adds that don't just have a 'close' button- popunder ads- ads with sound- ads grossly inappropriate to the site ("Sasha Grey's new gangbang adventure (with pic)" on a kids site...nice)Face it, YOUR income depends on your ads being unobtrusive enough to drive away viewers.
The current demand for adblocker suggests you've overshot, now pay the consequences.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30374898</id>
	<title>Advertising is *not* always obnoxious</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1259613120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Unfortunately for them, advertising is inherently obnoxious.</p></div><p>I disagree.  Here's an anecdote which proves it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p>One day I thought to myself, "I want to buy some $foo".  I turn to google, enter "buy $foo" in the search box, and look at the results.  None of the look promising.</p><p>That is, except for the sponsored link, accompanied by an unobtrusive short paragraph of text, fairly accurately saying "here's a URL.  If you go there, you can buy $foo".  I went there, looked at the prices, they seemed fair.</p><p>I was happy, Google was happy, the advertiser was happy.</p><p>Now, back to your discussion of 99.9\% of advertisement which gives the rest a bad name<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately for them , advertising is inherently obnoxious.I disagree .
Here 's an anecdote which proves it ; - ) One day I thought to myself , " I want to buy some $ foo " .
I turn to google , enter " buy $ foo " in the search box , and look at the results .
None of the look promising.That is , except for the sponsored link , accompanied by an unobtrusive short paragraph of text , fairly accurately saying " here 's a URL .
If you go there , you can buy $ foo " .
I went there , looked at the prices , they seemed fair.I was happy , Google was happy , the advertiser was happy.Now , back to your discussion of 99.9 \ % of advertisement which gives the rest a bad name ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately for them, advertising is inherently obnoxious.I disagree.
Here's an anecdote which proves it ;-)One day I thought to myself, "I want to buy some $foo".
I turn to google, enter "buy $foo" in the search box, and look at the results.
None of the look promising.That is, except for the sponsored link, accompanied by an unobtrusive short paragraph of text, fairly accurately saying "here's a URL.
If you go there, you can buy $foo".
I went there, looked at the prices, they seemed fair.I was happy, Google was happy, the advertiser was happy.Now, back to your discussion of 99.9\% of advertisement which gives the rest a bad name ;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370494</id>
	<title>Re:Extensions security?</title>
	<author>buchner.johannes</author>
	<datestamp>1260267660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All mozilla extensions on addons.mozilla.org go through a review process. Stuff might slip through, but its unlikely that unwanted behaviour in popular addons isn't noticed. The addons are distributed over SSL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All mozilla extensions on addons.mozilla.org go through a review process .
Stuff might slip through , but its unlikely that unwanted behaviour in popular addons is n't noticed .
The addons are distributed over SSL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All mozilla extensions on addons.mozilla.org go through a review process.
Stuff might slip through, but its unlikely that unwanted behaviour in popular addons isn't noticed.
The addons are distributed over SSL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369604</id>
	<title>addons make firefox bloated?</title>
	<author>forgottenusername</author>
	<datestamp>1260263160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone doesn't understand the concept of modular design. Lately stock it's reasonably snappy. If you choose to put in a bunch of addons and it gets slow, whose fault is that?</p><p>Normally I would let it slide but I've had my quota of stupid this afternoon. Cursed MySQL!</p><p>Anyway, Chrome actually performs scads better on my girlfriends netbook. Firefox is kind of a dog on it. So good news for her!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone does n't understand the concept of modular design .
Lately stock it 's reasonably snappy .
If you choose to put in a bunch of addons and it gets slow , whose fault is that ? Normally I would let it slide but I 've had my quota of stupid this afternoon .
Cursed MySQL ! Anyway , Chrome actually performs scads better on my girlfriends netbook .
Firefox is kind of a dog on it .
So good news for her !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone doesn't understand the concept of modular design.
Lately stock it's reasonably snappy.
If you choose to put in a bunch of addons and it gets slow, whose fault is that?Normally I would let it slide but I've had my quota of stupid this afternoon.
Cursed MySQL!Anyway, Chrome actually performs scads better on my girlfriends netbook.
Firefox is kind of a dog on it.
So good news for her!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370640</id>
	<title>Available? Well, kind of.</title>
	<author>The Evil Couch</author>
	<datestamp>1260268440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the summary:<blockquote><div><p>The Google Chrome Extensions site is now open for Windows and Linux users</p></div></blockquote><p>
From my browser:</p><blockquote><div><p>Google Chrome is up to date. (3.0.195.33)</p></div></blockquote><p>
From Google Chrome Extension site:</p><blockquote><div><p>Extensions are not yet supported in this version of Google Chrome. Please download the Beta Channel of Google Chrome to install extensions.</p></div></blockquote><p>

I realize that this was posted by kdawson, but having "beta test" in the title or, at the very least, somewhere in the summary would have been great.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the summary : The Google Chrome Extensions site is now open for Windows and Linux users From my browser : Google Chrome is up to date .
( 3.0.195.33 ) From Google Chrome Extension site : Extensions are not yet supported in this version of Google Chrome .
Please download the Beta Channel of Google Chrome to install extensions .
I realize that this was posted by kdawson , but having " beta test " in the title or , at the very least , somewhere in the summary would have been great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the summary:The Google Chrome Extensions site is now open for Windows and Linux users
From my browser:Google Chrome is up to date.
(3.0.195.33)
From Google Chrome Extension site:Extensions are not yet supported in this version of Google Chrome.
Please download the Beta Channel of Google Chrome to install extensions.
I realize that this was posted by kdawson, but having "beta test" in the title or, at the very least, somewhere in the summary would have been great.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370086</id>
	<title>Yes adblock. GIYF!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260265740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It has adblock options:</p><p>http://adsweep.org/</p><p>http://www.chromeextensions.org/appearance-functioning/adblock/</p><p>https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/cdngiadmnkhgemkimkhiilgffbjijcie</p><p>others...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It has adblock options : http : //adsweep.org/http : //www.chromeextensions.org/appearance-functioning/adblock/https : //chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/cdngiadmnkhgemkimkhiilgffbjijcieothers.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has adblock options:http://adsweep.org/http://www.chromeextensions.org/appearance-functioning/adblock/https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/cdngiadmnkhgemkimkhiilgffbjijcieothers...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369952</id>
	<title>Re:No AdBlock? No Chrome for me.</title>
	<author>mabinogi</author>
	<datestamp>1260264960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what sorts of sites do you visit that ads are such a problem for you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what sorts of sites do you visit that ads are such a problem for you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what sorts of sites do you visit that ads are such a problem for you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30372538</id>
	<title>Re:Take on AdBlock?</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1260278460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>As someone who makes his living selling content through the Internet, I want people to think several times before building a tool like AdBlock. If the content industry can't make money from ads, we'll either go out of business or put our information behind a paywall.</p></div></blockquote><p>(1) AdBlock already exists for Firefox; whether a version is created for Chrome mainly effects whether people who for whom lack of that functionality is a dealbreaker use Chrome instead of Firefox. Actually, ad blocking (or at least hiding) extensions already exist for Chrome, too, so the main affect of new ones is in the minute details of the user experience for users who want to block ads. For the issue you raise, the ship has sailed -- ad blockers exist and are prevalent enough that anyone who wants to block ads from their browsing experience can find a way to do so.</p><p>(2) Yes, if you can't get your users to pay enough for content for you to make a profit on it (either directly or by supporting your advertisers who in turn support you), you will go out of that business. If you (the content industry as a whole) think web advertising is the best way for you to stay in business, you may want to fight the obnoxious and intrusive advertising practices on the web that lead so many people to use ad blockers.</p><blockquote><div><p>I understand that advertisements can be annoying and often temperamental</p></div></blockquote><p>Then maybe you (again, the content industry) ought to work to correct that. Especially since, as you point out, the public response to that annoyance threatens your industry.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who makes his living selling content through the Internet , I want people to think several times before building a tool like AdBlock .
If the content industry ca n't make money from ads , we 'll either go out of business or put our information behind a paywall .
( 1 ) AdBlock already exists for Firefox ; whether a version is created for Chrome mainly effects whether people who for whom lack of that functionality is a dealbreaker use Chrome instead of Firefox .
Actually , ad blocking ( or at least hiding ) extensions already exist for Chrome , too , so the main affect of new ones is in the minute details of the user experience for users who want to block ads .
For the issue you raise , the ship has sailed -- ad blockers exist and are prevalent enough that anyone who wants to block ads from their browsing experience can find a way to do so .
( 2 ) Yes , if you ca n't get your users to pay enough for content for you to make a profit on it ( either directly or by supporting your advertisers who in turn support you ) , you will go out of that business .
If you ( the content industry as a whole ) think web advertising is the best way for you to stay in business , you may want to fight the obnoxious and intrusive advertising practices on the web that lead so many people to use ad blockers.I understand that advertisements can be annoying and often temperamentalThen maybe you ( again , the content industry ) ought to work to correct that .
Especially since , as you point out , the public response to that annoyance threatens your industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who makes his living selling content through the Internet, I want people to think several times before building a tool like AdBlock.
If the content industry can't make money from ads, we'll either go out of business or put our information behind a paywall.
(1) AdBlock already exists for Firefox; whether a version is created for Chrome mainly effects whether people who for whom lack of that functionality is a dealbreaker use Chrome instead of Firefox.
Actually, ad blocking (or at least hiding) extensions already exist for Chrome, too, so the main affect of new ones is in the minute details of the user experience for users who want to block ads.
For the issue you raise, the ship has sailed -- ad blockers exist and are prevalent enough that anyone who wants to block ads from their browsing experience can find a way to do so.
(2) Yes, if you can't get your users to pay enough for content for you to make a profit on it (either directly or by supporting your advertisers who in turn support you), you will go out of that business.
If you (the content industry as a whole) think web advertising is the best way for you to stay in business, you may want to fight the obnoxious and intrusive advertising practices on the web that lead so many people to use ad blockers.I understand that advertisements can be annoying and often temperamentalThen maybe you (again, the content industry) ought to work to correct that.
Especially since, as you point out, the public response to that annoyance threatens your industry.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369976</id>
	<title>Waiting for NoScript</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260265140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I actually don't care if a site displays ads at me, so long as they're well-behaved.</p><p>But I don't want a site to do ANYTHING that moves unless I give it permission.  NoScript handles that pretty well.</p><p>There is a Flashblock extension there, which is a good start, but I'm going to hold off switching to Chrome full-time until I can selectively disable Javascript.  (There are many good uses of it as well, so I don't want it disabled entirely.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually do n't care if a site displays ads at me , so long as they 're well-behaved.But I do n't want a site to do ANYTHING that moves unless I give it permission .
NoScript handles that pretty well.There is a Flashblock extension there , which is a good start , but I 'm going to hold off switching to Chrome full-time until I can selectively disable Javascript .
( There are many good uses of it as well , so I do n't want it disabled entirely .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually don't care if a site displays ads at me, so long as they're well-behaved.But I don't want a site to do ANYTHING that moves unless I give it permission.
NoScript handles that pretty well.There is a Flashblock extension there, which is a good start, but I'm going to hold off switching to Chrome full-time until I can selectively disable Javascript.
(There are many good uses of it as well, so I don't want it disabled entirely.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369634</id>
	<title>Bloated? Give me a break.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260263280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Does the availability of extensions put Chrome at risk of becoming bloated, like many complain about with Firefox?</p></div></blockquote><p>Are there really people so dumb that they use that line of reasoning? The only reason something would be bloated once you installed extra software is because <b>you installed extra software</b>. If you don't want to "bloat" your program, then don't install any addons. Problem solved.</p><p>"Doctor, it hurts when I do this!"</p><p>"Then don't do that."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does the availability of extensions put Chrome at risk of becoming bloated , like many complain about with Firefox ? Are there really people so dumb that they use that line of reasoning ?
The only reason something would be bloated once you installed extra software is because you installed extra software .
If you do n't want to " bloat " your program , then do n't install any addons .
Problem solved .
" Doctor , it hurts when I do this !
" " Then do n't do that .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does the availability of extensions put Chrome at risk of becoming bloated, like many complain about with Firefox?Are there really people so dumb that they use that line of reasoning?
The only reason something would be bloated once you installed extra software is because you installed extra software.
If you don't want to "bloat" your program, then don't install any addons.
Problem solved.
"Doctor, it hurts when I do this!
""Then don't do that.
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370356</id>
	<title>Re:Take on AdBlock?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260266940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its a war.  An arms race.  Advertisers (caring not about their viewers but their profits instead) find new and more clever ways to force ads into your face.  Often times, advertisements are abrupt and disruptive, ruining the experience.  Often, ads like this sway my opinions in a negative fashion than positive.</p><p>If an advertiser cannot sell their product WITHOUT abusive tactics, is it really a product worth buying?  Sites that allow these types of ads to be displayed obviously are not screening their content, or they do not care about their consumers.  The worst ads I have seen lately are:</p><p>1) Large, in-window popup flash (with sound usually) that has the exit button hidden somewhere in a non-standard location, and obscures the content completely<br>2) Fake links in the text of the site that popup crap on mouseover (usually while using the scroll wheel to move down the page)<br>3) Banners and footers that are a screen-size each, or similar on the margins that obscure the content as well.</p><p>I have never disabled a Google ad (though now that they own Doubleclick, thats not entirely true), but high context value ads that are parallel to the content instead of obscuring it has never bothered my browsing habit and often left a positive attitude towards the content provider and the advertised product.  The other types of ads (the ones I actively attempt to disable or avoid sites altogether for using trash like that) are worse than the 20 db gain on TV commercials, and 100x as annoying.</p><p>If you offer your goods and/or services via advertisements, please be aware of the signals you are sending to your customers.  If you cant be bothered to keep the consumer in mind, why do you deserve any of their time / money?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its a war .
An arms race .
Advertisers ( caring not about their viewers but their profits instead ) find new and more clever ways to force ads into your face .
Often times , advertisements are abrupt and disruptive , ruining the experience .
Often , ads like this sway my opinions in a negative fashion than positive.If an advertiser can not sell their product WITHOUT abusive tactics , is it really a product worth buying ?
Sites that allow these types of ads to be displayed obviously are not screening their content , or they do not care about their consumers .
The worst ads I have seen lately are : 1 ) Large , in-window popup flash ( with sound usually ) that has the exit button hidden somewhere in a non-standard location , and obscures the content completely2 ) Fake links in the text of the site that popup crap on mouseover ( usually while using the scroll wheel to move down the page ) 3 ) Banners and footers that are a screen-size each , or similar on the margins that obscure the content as well.I have never disabled a Google ad ( though now that they own Doubleclick , thats not entirely true ) , but high context value ads that are parallel to the content instead of obscuring it has never bothered my browsing habit and often left a positive attitude towards the content provider and the advertised product .
The other types of ads ( the ones I actively attempt to disable or avoid sites altogether for using trash like that ) are worse than the 20 db gain on TV commercials , and 100x as annoying.If you offer your goods and/or services via advertisements , please be aware of the signals you are sending to your customers .
If you cant be bothered to keep the consumer in mind , why do you deserve any of their time / money ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its a war.
An arms race.
Advertisers (caring not about their viewers but their profits instead) find new and more clever ways to force ads into your face.
Often times, advertisements are abrupt and disruptive, ruining the experience.
Often, ads like this sway my opinions in a negative fashion than positive.If an advertiser cannot sell their product WITHOUT abusive tactics, is it really a product worth buying?
Sites that allow these types of ads to be displayed obviously are not screening their content, or they do not care about their consumers.
The worst ads I have seen lately are:1) Large, in-window popup flash (with sound usually) that has the exit button hidden somewhere in a non-standard location, and obscures the content completely2) Fake links in the text of the site that popup crap on mouseover (usually while using the scroll wheel to move down the page)3) Banners and footers that are a screen-size each, or similar on the margins that obscure the content as well.I have never disabled a Google ad (though now that they own Doubleclick, thats not entirely true), but high context value ads that are parallel to the content instead of obscuring it has never bothered my browsing habit and often left a positive attitude towards the content provider and the advertised product.
The other types of ads (the ones I actively attempt to disable or avoid sites altogether for using trash like that) are worse than the 20 db gain on TV commercials, and 100x as annoying.If you offer your goods and/or services via advertisements, please be aware of the signals you are sending to your customers.
If you cant be bothered to keep the consumer in mind, why do you deserve any of their time / money?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30372058</id>
	<title>Re:Take on AdBlock?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260275640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but it will definitely happen if a tool for blocking ads gets adopted by any non-trivial subset of society.</p></div><p>I'm puzzled. If I am using adblock currently, then in an adblock-less world, I would not have clicked on the ads anyway.How do you lose because of adblock?</p><p><div class="quote"><p> The information ecology is much more fragile than you can imagine.</p> </div><p>Sorry, but adblock was a response to an *exceptionally irresponsible* approach to advertising. Google's rapid growth OTOH was a response to (initially) responsible advertising. This ecology has rewarded the responsible and punished the irresponsible. I think it is in good hands over the long term.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but it will definitely happen if a tool for blocking ads gets adopted by any non-trivial subset of society.I 'm puzzled .
If I am using adblock currently , then in an adblock-less world , I would not have clicked on the ads anyway.How do you lose because of adblock ?
The information ecology is much more fragile than you can imagine .
Sorry , but adblock was a response to an * exceptionally irresponsible * approach to advertising .
Google 's rapid growth OTOH was a response to ( initially ) responsible advertising .
This ecology has rewarded the responsible and punished the irresponsible .
I think it is in good hands over the long term .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but it will definitely happen if a tool for blocking ads gets adopted by any non-trivial subset of society.I'm puzzled.
If I am using adblock currently, then in an adblock-less world, I would not have clicked on the ads anyway.How do you lose because of adblock?
The information ecology is much more fragile than you can imagine.
Sorry, but adblock was a response to an *exceptionally irresponsible* approach to advertising.
Google's rapid growth OTOH was a response to (initially) responsible advertising.
This ecology has rewarded the responsible and punished the irresponsible.
I think it is in good hands over the long term.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370106</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>bmearns</author>
	<datestamp>1260265860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The problem isn't bad hardware, it's bad software. The Chrome authors may be the best, brightest, leanest coders in the world, but if someone submits an extension that happens to scarf down your resources doing god knows what, even the best browser on the best hardware will come to crawl. The problem is only escalated when you have multiple extensions running. 5\% of my memory may not be a big deal, but if each of 5 extensions eats that much, I'm down by a quarter! Not what I want from a browser.
</p><p>
But obviously, that's not the browser itself, it's the extensions, which each user decides for themselves whether or not to load. I just think it's kind of ignorant to think that extensions only affect performance if you have crappy hardware.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is n't bad hardware , it 's bad software .
The Chrome authors may be the best , brightest , leanest coders in the world , but if someone submits an extension that happens to scarf down your resources doing god knows what , even the best browser on the best hardware will come to crawl .
The problem is only escalated when you have multiple extensions running .
5 \ % of my memory may not be a big deal , but if each of 5 extensions eats that much , I 'm down by a quarter !
Not what I want from a browser .
But obviously , that 's not the browser itself , it 's the extensions , which each user decides for themselves whether or not to load .
I just think it 's kind of ignorant to think that extensions only affect performance if you have crappy hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The problem isn't bad hardware, it's bad software.
The Chrome authors may be the best, brightest, leanest coders in the world, but if someone submits an extension that happens to scarf down your resources doing god knows what, even the best browser on the best hardware will come to crawl.
The problem is only escalated when you have multiple extensions running.
5\% of my memory may not be a big deal, but if each of 5 extensions eats that much, I'm down by a quarter!
Not what I want from a browser.
But obviously, that's not the browser itself, it's the extensions, which each user decides for themselves whether or not to load.
I just think it's kind of ignorant to think that extensions only affect performance if you have crappy hardware.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30380852</id>
	<title>Re:Extensions security?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259575440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually Google Chrome extensions are sandboxed so they don't have any access to the browser process (that is the main process that displays the browser UI, does networking, etc). They also don't have any access to the filesystem, so they cannot make persistent changes to the system.</p><p>That said, I think this was a wording mistake on your part. You are right that extensions do have access to web pages, and that if you install a malicious extension it can hurt you, by eg, sniffing your passwords.</p><p>- Aaron Boodman (Google -- too lazy to create an account)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually Google Chrome extensions are sandboxed so they do n't have any access to the browser process ( that is the main process that displays the browser UI , does networking , etc ) .
They also do n't have any access to the filesystem , so they can not make persistent changes to the system.That said , I think this was a wording mistake on your part .
You are right that extensions do have access to web pages , and that if you install a malicious extension it can hurt you , by eg , sniffing your passwords.- Aaron Boodman ( Google -- too lazy to create an account )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually Google Chrome extensions are sandboxed so they don't have any access to the browser process (that is the main process that displays the browser UI, does networking, etc).
They also don't have any access to the filesystem, so they cannot make persistent changes to the system.That said, I think this was a wording mistake on your part.
You are right that extensions do have access to web pages, and that if you install a malicious extension it can hurt you, by eg, sniffing your passwords.- Aaron Boodman (Google -- too lazy to create an account)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370218</id>
	<title>Re:SRWare Iron and firefoxs addons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260266460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't know about you, but I trust more Google than some random guys on the Internet.</p></div><p>Yes! More Google, more Google, we all need more Google.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about you , but I trust more Google than some random guys on the Internet.Yes !
More Google , more Google , we all need more Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about you, but I trust more Google than some random guys on the Internet.Yes!
More Google, more Google, we all need more Google.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370600</id>
	<title>Re:SRWare Iron and firefoxs addons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260268200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, Chromium is Chrome but with all the things that violate your privacy removed (actually, not even added in the first place).</p><p>SRWare Iron is a lame attempt to rebrand Chromium.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , Chromium is Chrome but with all the things that violate your privacy removed ( actually , not even added in the first place ) .SRWare Iron is a lame attempt to rebrand Chromium .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, Chromium is Chrome but with all the things that violate your privacy removed (actually, not even added in the first place).SRWare Iron is a lame attempt to rebrand Chromium.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30373298</id>
	<title>Re:Take on AdBlock?</title>
	<author>cornicefire</author>
	<datestamp>1260284460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like free sites. I want them to continue. Therefore it is my job to sustain their business model. If I like a business I need to support it or at least not try to get their services for free.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like free sites .
I want them to continue .
Therefore it is my job to sustain their business model .
If I like a business I need to support it or at least not try to get their services for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like free sites.
I want them to continue.
Therefore it is my job to sustain their business model.
If I like a business I need to support it or at least not try to get their services for free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369824</id>
	<title>Re:SRWare Iron and firefoxs addons</title>
	<author>FutureDomain</author>
	<datestamp>1260264180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You forgot that Iron also has a built-in adblocker. It works a lot better than Adsweep.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot that Iron also has a built-in adblocker .
It works a lot better than Adsweep .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot that Iron also has a built-in adblocker.
It works a lot better than Adsweep.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30376584</id>
	<title>Re:You guys want Adblock? You've got Adblock!</title>
	<author>Chelloveck</author>
	<datestamp>1259593680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Now, quit complaining that Chrome doesn't have Adblock.</p></div></blockquote><p>I use a Mac, you insensitive clod!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , quit complaining that Chrome does n't have Adblock.I use a Mac , you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, quit complaining that Chrome doesn't have Adblock.I use a Mac, you insensitive clod!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369732</id>
	<title>Bloat is fine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260263820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as my software is bloated with things I use and installed personally, I don't care.</p><p>This is something Windows should take advantage years ago, install a minimal system specifically for my current configuration and worry about modifications as they come... Meanwhile I'd just install the apps I want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as my software is bloated with things I use and installed personally , I do n't care.This is something Windows should take advantage years ago , install a minimal system specifically for my current configuration and worry about modifications as they come... Meanwhile I 'd just install the apps I want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as my software is bloated with things I use and installed personally, I don't care.This is something Windows should take advantage years ago, install a minimal system specifically for my current configuration and worry about modifications as they come... Meanwhile I'd just install the apps I want.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370010</id>
	<title>No, and if you say it does, you get an F- at logic</title>
	<author>thisnamestoolong</author>
	<datestamp>1260265320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Complaining that your extensions make Chrome bloated is like complaining that your car weighs too much after you fill the trunk with cement -- if you want to keep it fast, just don't add extensions! If you would rather sacrifice a little speed for added functionality, go for it! Hell, if you want to install every single extension you find until your browser barely runs, that's your choice too! I can't see why anyone with half a brain, however, would suggest that the option to add extensions puts the browser at risk of becoming bloated.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Complaining that your extensions make Chrome bloated is like complaining that your car weighs too much after you fill the trunk with cement -- if you want to keep it fast , just do n't add extensions !
If you would rather sacrifice a little speed for added functionality , go for it !
Hell , if you want to install every single extension you find until your browser barely runs , that 's your choice too !
I ca n't see why anyone with half a brain , however , would suggest that the option to add extensions puts the browser at risk of becoming bloated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Complaining that your extensions make Chrome bloated is like complaining that your car weighs too much after you fill the trunk with cement -- if you want to keep it fast, just don't add extensions!
If you would rather sacrifice a little speed for added functionality, go for it!
Hell, if you want to install every single extension you find until your browser barely runs, that's your choice too!
I can't see why anyone with half a brain, however, would suggest that the option to add extensions puts the browser at risk of becoming bloated.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30375126</id>
	<title>Extensions and middle click</title>
	<author>Cato</author>
	<datestamp>1259573940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really like being able to install extensions without restarting the browser - Firefox should have this, it can already do this for plugins bizarrely enough (even Netscape had this feature though it wasn't easy to invoke).</p><p>The middle click behaviour is annoying but the speed of Chrome is enough to make me use it more.  All I need now is for Xmarks to come out of beta.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really like being able to install extensions without restarting the browser - Firefox should have this , it can already do this for plugins bizarrely enough ( even Netscape had this feature though it was n't easy to invoke ) .The middle click behaviour is annoying but the speed of Chrome is enough to make me use it more .
All I need now is for Xmarks to come out of beta .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really like being able to install extensions without restarting the browser - Firefox should have this, it can already do this for plugins bizarrely enough (even Netscape had this feature though it wasn't easy to invoke).The middle click behaviour is annoying but the speed of Chrome is enough to make me use it more.
All I need now is for Xmarks to come out of beta.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370048</id>
	<title>Don't Want Bloat?</title>
	<author>TheNinjaroach</author>
	<datestamp>1260265440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't install any extensions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't install any extensions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't install any extensions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371152</id>
	<title>Re:Take on AdBlock?</title>
	<author>Mikiso</author>
	<datestamp>1260270600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So to translate, "If you do ABC, you'll destroy revenue model XYZ. I make money using XYZ, so you should stop doing ABC."</p><p>Just replace "ABC" with "download MP3s" and "XYZ" with "being the middle man" and you'll have a thread about the RIAA. Use "drive electric cars"/"selling oil" and you've got Exxon.</p><p>If someone's product (be it a blog post, a song, or a gallon of gas) is worth paying for, people will. If not, no one will care if it just disappears. Invoke the invisible hands of the free market or whatever, but really we all need to realize that no one is entitled to success simply because they try or something worked yesterday. When XYZ stops working, it's time to find a new business model. Adapt or die.</p><p>Regardless, the people who seek out AdBlock and other such tools are the same people that will never click on ads. I know, because I'm one of those people. And I happen to work in the advertising industry too. From my point of view, I'm doing everyone a service by blocking the ad calls. I'm not wasting an impression which would just hurt the click through rate of campaigns. And a crummy CTR will quickly drive the advertisers away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So to translate , " If you do ABC , you 'll destroy revenue model XYZ .
I make money using XYZ , so you should stop doing ABC .
" Just replace " ABC " with " download MP3s " and " XYZ " with " being the middle man " and you 'll have a thread about the RIAA .
Use " drive electric cars " / " selling oil " and you 've got Exxon.If someone 's product ( be it a blog post , a song , or a gallon of gas ) is worth paying for , people will .
If not , no one will care if it just disappears .
Invoke the invisible hands of the free market or whatever , but really we all need to realize that no one is entitled to success simply because they try or something worked yesterday .
When XYZ stops working , it 's time to find a new business model .
Adapt or die.Regardless , the people who seek out AdBlock and other such tools are the same people that will never click on ads .
I know , because I 'm one of those people .
And I happen to work in the advertising industry too .
From my point of view , I 'm doing everyone a service by blocking the ad calls .
I 'm not wasting an impression which would just hurt the click through rate of campaigns .
And a crummy CTR will quickly drive the advertisers away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So to translate, "If you do ABC, you'll destroy revenue model XYZ.
I make money using XYZ, so you should stop doing ABC.
"Just replace "ABC" with "download MP3s" and "XYZ" with "being the middle man" and you'll have a thread about the RIAA.
Use "drive electric cars"/"selling oil" and you've got Exxon.If someone's product (be it a blog post, a song, or a gallon of gas) is worth paying for, people will.
If not, no one will care if it just disappears.
Invoke the invisible hands of the free market or whatever, but really we all need to realize that no one is entitled to success simply because they try or something worked yesterday.
When XYZ stops working, it's time to find a new business model.
Adapt or die.Regardless, the people who seek out AdBlock and other such tools are the same people that will never click on ads.
I know, because I'm one of those people.
And I happen to work in the advertising industry too.
From my point of view, I'm doing everyone a service by blocking the ad calls.
I'm not wasting an impression which would just hurt the click through rate of campaigns.
And a crummy CTR will quickly drive the advertisers away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370034</id>
	<title>Scam site is google-ranked higher than google's.</title>
	<author>stevenm86</author>
	<datestamp>1260265380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well... It appears that the first google hit for 'chrome add-ons' links to mychromeaddons.com
<br>
This site is made to look like google's, but is LITTERED WITH ADS. The whois information reveals it's a third-party site.<br>
The OFFICIAL chrome add-on site also does list an AdBlock extension, but something is fishy about it. When trying to install it, Chrome warns that "this extension is trying to access your data on api.flickr.com." What the hell?
<br>
<br>
We'll see if and how Google will try to combat these issues...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well... It appears that the first google hit for 'chrome add-ons ' links to mychromeaddons.com This site is made to look like google 's , but is LITTERED WITH ADS .
The whois information reveals it 's a third-party site .
The OFFICIAL chrome add-on site also does list an AdBlock extension , but something is fishy about it .
When trying to install it , Chrome warns that " this extension is trying to access your data on api.flickr.com .
" What the hell ?
We 'll see if and how Google will try to combat these issues.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well... It appears that the first google hit for 'chrome add-ons' links to mychromeaddons.com

This site is made to look like google's, but is LITTERED WITH ADS.
The whois information reveals it's a third-party site.
The OFFICIAL chrome add-on site also does list an AdBlock extension, but something is fishy about it.
When trying to install it, Chrome warns that "this extension is trying to access your data on api.flickr.com.
" What the hell?
We'll see if and how Google will try to combat these issues...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30372634</id>
	<title>Re:No AdBlock? No Chrome for me.</title>
	<author>Tacvek</author>
	<datestamp>1260279120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The adblock equivlent is available. It is called adthwart. It is listed as a top extension. It by default uses EasyList which is by far the most popular advertisement list for Adblock.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The adblock equivlent is available .
It is called adthwart .
It is listed as a top extension .
It by default uses EasyList which is by far the most popular advertisement list for Adblock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The adblock equivlent is available.
It is called adthwart.
It is listed as a top extension.
It by default uses EasyList which is by far the most popular advertisement list for Adblock.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369576</id>
	<title>No AdBlock?  No Chrome for me.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260263100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It wasn't until I recently fired up Chrome that I realized how spoiled I've become with FF+AdBlock.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was n't until I recently fired up Chrome that I realized how spoiled I 've become with FF + AdBlock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It wasn't until I recently fired up Chrome that I realized how spoiled I've become with FF+AdBlock.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371392</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox bloat comes not from extensions...</title>
	<author>arkenian</author>
	<datestamp>1260271800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And then we get into a world where people bundle sets of extensions into different 'standard' feature sets, call them distributions, and different distributions being subtly incompatible with eachother . . . have we been down this road before, maybe?  The strictly bare bones approach you advocate doesn't work for anything but the smallest percentage of users.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And then we get into a world where people bundle sets of extensions into different 'standard ' feature sets , call them distributions , and different distributions being subtly incompatible with eachother .
. .
have we been down this road before , maybe ?
The strictly bare bones approach you advocate does n't work for anything but the smallest percentage of users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And then we get into a world where people bundle sets of extensions into different 'standard' feature sets, call them distributions, and different distributions being subtly incompatible with eachother .
. .
have we been down this road before, maybe?
The strictly bare bones approach you advocate doesn't work for anything but the smallest percentage of users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370416</id>
	<title>Re:Bloat...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260267180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Every content script is adding some finite but real cost to the pages it effects. And of course, poor extension design would lead to a bloated browser.</p></div><p>And in case of an adblock-extension it'll always remove a finite but real cost from the page: Images, scripts, or sometimes even page content.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every content script is adding some finite but real cost to the pages it effects .
And of course , poor extension design would lead to a bloated browser.And in case of an adblock-extension it 'll always remove a finite but real cost from the page : Images , scripts , or sometimes even page content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every content script is adding some finite but real cost to the pages it effects.
And of course, poor extension design would lead to a bloated browser.And in case of an adblock-extension it'll always remove a finite but real cost from the page: Images, scripts, or sometimes even page content.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370370</id>
	<title>Uh....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260267000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The idea that Firefox is this sluggish beast seems to be a false idea implanted by Chrome fans, IMO.  I use Firefox, my pages load up almost instantly.  I'm using AdBlock, FlashBlock, IE Tab, FasterFox Lite, Image Zoom, Real Downloader, and FireFTP.   When I hit the Firefox button on my Win7 taskbar Firefox is there almost instantly displaying a blank tab for me to begin working with.  When I click a certain site, it loads up almost instantly, and the only times I ever have slowness is when the sites themselves are slow.  The browser doesn't slow down, you can still interact with it and other tabs fine, only that site is slow loading, and that's not bloat, that's a slow server.  I tried Chrome, it runs just as fast, but nothing so much faster than FF that it's going to make me immediately switch over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea that Firefox is this sluggish beast seems to be a false idea implanted by Chrome fans , IMO .
I use Firefox , my pages load up almost instantly .
I 'm using AdBlock , FlashBlock , IE Tab , FasterFox Lite , Image Zoom , Real Downloader , and FireFTP .
When I hit the Firefox button on my Win7 taskbar Firefox is there almost instantly displaying a blank tab for me to begin working with .
When I click a certain site , it loads up almost instantly , and the only times I ever have slowness is when the sites themselves are slow .
The browser does n't slow down , you can still interact with it and other tabs fine , only that site is slow loading , and that 's not bloat , that 's a slow server .
I tried Chrome , it runs just as fast , but nothing so much faster than FF that it 's going to make me immediately switch over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea that Firefox is this sluggish beast seems to be a false idea implanted by Chrome fans, IMO.
I use Firefox, my pages load up almost instantly.
I'm using AdBlock, FlashBlock, IE Tab, FasterFox Lite, Image Zoom, Real Downloader, and FireFTP.
When I hit the Firefox button on my Win7 taskbar Firefox is there almost instantly displaying a blank tab for me to begin working with.
When I click a certain site, it loads up almost instantly, and the only times I ever have slowness is when the sites themselves are slow.
The browser doesn't slow down, you can still interact with it and other tabs fine, only that site is slow loading, and that's not bloat, that's a slow server.
I tried Chrome, it runs just as fast, but nothing so much faster than FF that it's going to make me immediately switch over.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30377118</id>
	<title>Re:Extensions security?</title>
	<author>AmiMoJo</author>
	<datestamp>1259597520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The updates are not reviewed anyway. I can update <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/13626/" title="mozilla.org">my extension</a> [mozilla.org] whenever I want with no checking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The updates are not reviewed anyway .
I can update my extension [ mozilla.org ] whenever I want with no checking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The updates are not reviewed anyway.
I can update my extension [mozilla.org] whenever I want with no checking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30372520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371796</id>
	<title>Re:Extensions security?</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1260274080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a firefox extension I use called Property Bee.  What it does is that every time I visit certain popular British and Irish real estate listing sites, such as Rightmove, it sends details of everything I look at on the site to a central server.  In return, it tells me what all the other plug-in users saw when they looked at that particular property, so I can see a full history of all the changes the estate agent (realtor) has made to the listing, including price and description.</p><p>A plug in like that, which is totally up-front about what it does is fine, but the same technology that is used in that plug-in could be used for purposes that are definitely not OK.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a firefox extension I use called Property Bee .
What it does is that every time I visit certain popular British and Irish real estate listing sites , such as Rightmove , it sends details of everything I look at on the site to a central server .
In return , it tells me what all the other plug-in users saw when they looked at that particular property , so I can see a full history of all the changes the estate agent ( realtor ) has made to the listing , including price and description.A plug in like that , which is totally up-front about what it does is fine , but the same technology that is used in that plug-in could be used for purposes that are definitely not OK .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a firefox extension I use called Property Bee.
What it does is that every time I visit certain popular British and Irish real estate listing sites, such as Rightmove, it sends details of everything I look at on the site to a central server.
In return, it tells me what all the other plug-in users saw when they looked at that particular property, so I can see a full history of all the changes the estate agent (realtor) has made to the listing, including price and description.A plug in like that, which is totally up-front about what it does is fine, but the same technology that is used in that plug-in could be used for purposes that are definitely not OK.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369686</id>
	<title>You guys want Adblock?  You've got Adblock!</title>
	<author>icannotthinkofaname</author>
	<datestamp>1260263580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can find Adblock right <a href="http://www.chromeextensions.org/appearance-functioning/adblock/" title="chromeextensions.org" rel="nofollow">here</a> [chromeextensions.org].</p><p>Works with SRWare Iron 4.x.</p><p>Now, quit complaining that Chrome doesn't have Adblock.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can find Adblock right here [ chromeextensions.org ] .Works with SRWare Iron 4.x.Now , quit complaining that Chrome does n't have Adblock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can find Adblock right here [chromeextensions.org].Works with SRWare Iron 4.x.Now, quit complaining that Chrome doesn't have Adblock.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371104</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260270420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because even with the highest end computers, Firefox is still buggy and runs like shit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because even with the highest end computers , Firefox is still buggy and runs like shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because even with the highest end computers, Firefox is still buggy and runs like shit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371434</id>
	<title>Not a chance in hell</title>
	<author>Wee</author>
	<datestamp>1260272040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is not a chance in hell I'm going to browse the web without an ad blocker and a JavaScript white list.  The web is totally useless without those two features.  I don't like flashing, blinking ads, and I don't like other people running code on my machine indiscriminately.
<br> <br>

But more to the point: Since I'll never, ever click on a banner ad why wouldn't you want me to save your bandwidth by not downloading your creatives?  There's absolutely <b>zero</b> chance I'll click on it (since doing so only reinforces the notion that banner ads are in any way a good thing), so why would you want me to cost you money by downloading it?
<br> <br>

<i>Google itself depends almost entirely upon ads for their revenue. While I recognize that many of their ads were historically unobtrusive, they are selling more and more display ads.</i>
<br> <br>

You're conflating image-based ads with Google's text ads, and implying that image-based advertising is in any way key to their revenue stream.  You shouldn't do that.  Google's ads don't flash, blink, etc.  They're descriptive, and not misleading.  They're context-generated, and so most likely pertain to what interests you at the given moment.  Banner ads are none of the above.  Google's ads are occasionally useful.  Your banner ads are useless to the point of being an annoyance.  See the difference?
<br> <br>

I actually do click on Google's ads.  I'll continue to do so, since I occasionally find them useful.  Banner ads I will never find useful.
<br> <br>

-B</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is not a chance in hell I 'm going to browse the web without an ad blocker and a JavaScript white list .
The web is totally useless without those two features .
I do n't like flashing , blinking ads , and I do n't like other people running code on my machine indiscriminately .
But more to the point : Since I 'll never , ever click on a banner ad why would n't you want me to save your bandwidth by not downloading your creatives ?
There 's absolutely zero chance I 'll click on it ( since doing so only reinforces the notion that banner ads are in any way a good thing ) , so why would you want me to cost you money by downloading it ?
Google itself depends almost entirely upon ads for their revenue .
While I recognize that many of their ads were historically unobtrusive , they are selling more and more display ads .
You 're conflating image-based ads with Google 's text ads , and implying that image-based advertising is in any way key to their revenue stream .
You should n't do that .
Google 's ads do n't flash , blink , etc .
They 're descriptive , and not misleading .
They 're context-generated , and so most likely pertain to what interests you at the given moment .
Banner ads are none of the above .
Google 's ads are occasionally useful .
Your banner ads are useless to the point of being an annoyance .
See the difference ?
I actually do click on Google 's ads .
I 'll continue to do so , since I occasionally find them useful .
Banner ads I will never find useful .
-B</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is not a chance in hell I'm going to browse the web without an ad blocker and a JavaScript white list.
The web is totally useless without those two features.
I don't like flashing, blinking ads, and I don't like other people running code on my machine indiscriminately.
But more to the point: Since I'll never, ever click on a banner ad why wouldn't you want me to save your bandwidth by not downloading your creatives?
There's absolutely zero chance I'll click on it (since doing so only reinforces the notion that banner ads are in any way a good thing), so why would you want me to cost you money by downloading it?
Google itself depends almost entirely upon ads for their revenue.
While I recognize that many of their ads were historically unobtrusive, they are selling more and more display ads.
You're conflating image-based ads with Google's text ads, and implying that image-based advertising is in any way key to their revenue stream.
You shouldn't do that.
Google's ads don't flash, blink, etc.
They're descriptive, and not misleading.
They're context-generated, and so most likely pertain to what interests you at the given moment.
Banner ads are none of the above.
Google's ads are occasionally useful.
Your banner ads are useless to the point of being an annoyance.
See the difference?
I actually do click on Google's ads.
I'll continue to do so, since I occasionally find them useful.
Banner ads I will never find useful.
-B</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370348</id>
	<title>Re:Bloated.</title>
	<author>jsdcnet</author>
	<datestamp>1260266940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't use any Firefox extensions and I feel like it's bloated. Extensions aren't the problem, they're the solution.

Firefox has slowly become more and more like what really bothered me about IE. Nothing specific -- but it's getting slower and buggier. Just like IE. It's not quick and light like it used to be. I'm ready to try Chrome on my Mac.</p></div><p>I thought Firefox was getting slower, so I disabled all the auto-update checking on launch.  That made it start up as fast as Safari on my Mac.  I've switched between Safari and FF for day to day browsing and I don't really feel any speed difference to be honest.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't use any Firefox extensions and I feel like it 's bloated .
Extensions are n't the problem , they 're the solution .
Firefox has slowly become more and more like what really bothered me about IE .
Nothing specific -- but it 's getting slower and buggier .
Just like IE .
It 's not quick and light like it used to be .
I 'm ready to try Chrome on my Mac.I thought Firefox was getting slower , so I disabled all the auto-update checking on launch .
That made it start up as fast as Safari on my Mac .
I 've switched between Safari and FF for day to day browsing and I do n't really feel any speed difference to be honest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't use any Firefox extensions and I feel like it's bloated.
Extensions aren't the problem, they're the solution.
Firefox has slowly become more and more like what really bothered me about IE.
Nothing specific -- but it's getting slower and buggier.
Just like IE.
It's not quick and light like it used to be.
I'm ready to try Chrome on my Mac.I thought Firefox was getting slower, so I disabled all the auto-update checking on launch.
That made it start up as fast as Safari on my Mac.
I've switched between Safari and FF for day to day browsing and I don't really feel any speed difference to be honest.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369696</id>
	<title>Re:Bloated.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260263640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Firefox has slowly become more and more like what really bothered me about IE. Nothing specific -- but it's getting slower and buggier. Just like IE. It's not quick and light like it used to be.</p></div></blockquote><p>I think the problem is all the extra javascript that is being added to the average web site. I've noticed sites getting slower and slower even on the same version of Firefox. Then 3.5 came out and sped things up a bit. I suspect that this will encourage developers to use more excessive javascript when it's not necessary and slow down their sites even more.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox has slowly become more and more like what really bothered me about IE .
Nothing specific -- but it 's getting slower and buggier .
Just like IE .
It 's not quick and light like it used to be.I think the problem is all the extra javascript that is being added to the average web site .
I 've noticed sites getting slower and slower even on the same version of Firefox .
Then 3.5 came out and sped things up a bit .
I suspect that this will encourage developers to use more excessive javascript when it 's not necessary and slow down their sites even more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox has slowly become more and more like what really bothered me about IE.
Nothing specific -- but it's getting slower and buggier.
Just like IE.
It's not quick and light like it used to be.I think the problem is all the extra javascript that is being added to the average web site.
I've noticed sites getting slower and slower even on the same version of Firefox.
Then 3.5 came out and sped things up a bit.
I suspect that this will encourage developers to use more excessive javascript when it's not necessary and slow down their sites even more.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371420</id>
	<title>Re:Bloated.</title>
	<author>buchner.johannes</author>
	<datestamp>1260271980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe we'll have MHz requirements for websites at some point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe we 'll have MHz requirements for websites at some point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe we'll have MHz requirements for websites at some point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30372730</id>
	<title>Re:Take on AdBlock?</title>
	<author>mister\_playboy</author>
	<datestamp>1260279840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fuck advertising.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck advertising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck advertising.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371444</id>
	<title>Re:Take on AdBlock?</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1260272040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that AdBlock's only mode is "always on, except on whitelisted sites." If it had a mode of "always off, except for blacklisted sites" then I think a lot more people would get behind it-- content creators and web surfers.</p><p>I know for me, there are only about 3 domains I regularly see that have ads I want to block, everything else I visit I want to see the ads. But there's no way to tell AdBlock this, and so my choices are either to block all ads, or keep AdBlock constantly turned-off until I'm on one of those sites. Neither is a good choice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that AdBlock 's only mode is " always on , except on whitelisted sites .
" If it had a mode of " always off , except for blacklisted sites " then I think a lot more people would get behind it-- content creators and web surfers.I know for me , there are only about 3 domains I regularly see that have ads I want to block , everything else I visit I want to see the ads .
But there 's no way to tell AdBlock this , and so my choices are either to block all ads , or keep AdBlock constantly turned-off until I 'm on one of those sites .
Neither is a good choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that AdBlock's only mode is "always on, except on whitelisted sites.
" If it had a mode of "always off, except for blacklisted sites" then I think a lot more people would get behind it-- content creators and web surfers.I know for me, there are only about 3 domains I regularly see that have ads I want to block, everything else I visit I want to see the ads.
But there's no way to tell AdBlock this, and so my choices are either to block all ads, or keep AdBlock constantly turned-off until I'm on one of those sites.
Neither is a good choice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370846</id>
	<title>Re:Take on AdBlock?</title>
	<author>amicusNYCL</author>
	<datestamp>1260269340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If the content industry can't make money from ads, we'll either go out of business or put our information behind a paywall.</p></div><p>Have you considered why people block ads in the first place?  Historically ads have been both obtrusive and have degraded the user experience in terms of performance.  Advertisers do not have a good record of restraining themselves, if they can get a neon ad to appear in the middle of your screen and shake around until you respond to it, that's what they're going to do.  Now that the public has the ability to restrain ads it's up to the advertisers to figure out how to structure their ads so that they are not a problem for users.  It would be pretty easy to gauge how well they're doing by the number of people who choose to block ads.  It's not up to the public to support an obnoxious business model, if advertisers want money they need to figure out how to not be obnoxious.  Unfortunately for them, advertising is inherently obnoxious.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Please consider the long term consequences for building such a tool.</p></div><p>If the long-term consequences involve removing ads from the internet, that's not a bad thing.  Even if a lot of content goes with it, in time the content will come back and there will always be people willing to post content without expecting a paycheck from it.  The internet doesn't exist to put money in your account.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The information ecology is much more fragile than you can imagine.</p></div><p>No it's not, it's far more robust then you give it credit for.  Information will always be available online, as long as there are people willing to spread their message without being paid for it.  That's the backbone of the internet, advertisers and people selling content are just along for the ride.  If you don't believe me, look at Wikipedia, or take a poll here and figure out how many posters got paid to comment.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the content industry ca n't make money from ads , we 'll either go out of business or put our information behind a paywall.Have you considered why people block ads in the first place ?
Historically ads have been both obtrusive and have degraded the user experience in terms of performance .
Advertisers do not have a good record of restraining themselves , if they can get a neon ad to appear in the middle of your screen and shake around until you respond to it , that 's what they 're going to do .
Now that the public has the ability to restrain ads it 's up to the advertisers to figure out how to structure their ads so that they are not a problem for users .
It would be pretty easy to gauge how well they 're doing by the number of people who choose to block ads .
It 's not up to the public to support an obnoxious business model , if advertisers want money they need to figure out how to not be obnoxious .
Unfortunately for them , advertising is inherently obnoxious.Please consider the long term consequences for building such a tool.If the long-term consequences involve removing ads from the internet , that 's not a bad thing .
Even if a lot of content goes with it , in time the content will come back and there will always be people willing to post content without expecting a paycheck from it .
The internet does n't exist to put money in your account.The information ecology is much more fragile than you can imagine.No it 's not , it 's far more robust then you give it credit for .
Information will always be available online , as long as there are people willing to spread their message without being paid for it .
That 's the backbone of the internet , advertisers and people selling content are just along for the ride .
If you do n't believe me , look at Wikipedia , or take a poll here and figure out how many posters got paid to comment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the content industry can't make money from ads, we'll either go out of business or put our information behind a paywall.Have you considered why people block ads in the first place?
Historically ads have been both obtrusive and have degraded the user experience in terms of performance.
Advertisers do not have a good record of restraining themselves, if they can get a neon ad to appear in the middle of your screen and shake around until you respond to it, that's what they're going to do.
Now that the public has the ability to restrain ads it's up to the advertisers to figure out how to structure their ads so that they are not a problem for users.
It would be pretty easy to gauge how well they're doing by the number of people who choose to block ads.
It's not up to the public to support an obnoxious business model, if advertisers want money they need to figure out how to not be obnoxious.
Unfortunately for them, advertising is inherently obnoxious.Please consider the long term consequences for building such a tool.If the long-term consequences involve removing ads from the internet, that's not a bad thing.
Even if a lot of content goes with it, in time the content will come back and there will always be people willing to post content without expecting a paycheck from it.
The internet doesn't exist to put money in your account.The information ecology is much more fragile than you can imagine.No it's not, it's far more robust then you give it credit for.
Information will always be available online, as long as there are people willing to spread their message without being paid for it.
That's the backbone of the internet, advertisers and people selling content are just along for the ride.
If you don't believe me, look at Wikipedia, or take a poll here and figure out how many posters got paid to comment.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369782</id>
	<title>sigh</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1260264000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Does the availability of extensions put Chrome at risk of becoming bloated, like many complain about with Firefox?"</p></div></blockquote><p> If you think extensions make your browser "bloated" then you are free not to install them.  The one major stumbling block that keeps me and presumably many others from ditching Firefox for Chrome is the complete lack of useful extensions like Noscript, Adblock and several others.  Customization is a hue reason why Firefox is the leading competitor against Internet Explorer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does the availability of extensions put Chrome at risk of becoming bloated , like many complain about with Firefox ?
" If you think extensions make your browser " bloated " then you are free not to install them .
The one major stumbling block that keeps me and presumably many others from ditching Firefox for Chrome is the complete lack of useful extensions like Noscript , Adblock and several others .
Customization is a hue reason why Firefox is the leading competitor against Internet Explorer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does the availability of extensions put Chrome at risk of becoming bloated, like many complain about with Firefox?
" If you think extensions make your browser "bloated" then you are free not to install them.
The one major stumbling block that keeps me and presumably many others from ditching Firefox for Chrome is the complete lack of useful extensions like Noscript, Adblock and several others.
Customization is a hue reason why Firefox is the leading competitor against Internet Explorer.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369738</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260263820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, we're all totally pissed that our extensions take up an added 5\% of our memory usage and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.00000000005\% of our disk space, and the extra 00:00:03 of time the processor spent loading them right?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/sarcasm</p><p>
&nbsp; Why is it that the people here, on a computing and technology based site, have the shittiest, low end, antiquated computer equipment around?  The actual users of the extensions don't care AT ALL that it takes that tiny fraction more to view their sites without ads or whatever else it is that helps them get their browsing done better/faster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , we 're all totally pissed that our extensions take up an added 5 \ % of our memory usage and .00000000005 \ % of our disk space , and the extra 00 : 00 : 03 of time the processor spent loading them right ?
/sarcasm   Why is it that the people here , on a computing and technology based site , have the shittiest , low end , antiquated computer equipment around ?
The actual users of the extensions do n't care AT ALL that it takes that tiny fraction more to view their sites without ads or whatever else it is that helps them get their browsing done better/faster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, we're all totally pissed that our extensions take up an added 5\% of our memory usage and .00000000005\% of our disk space, and the extra 00:00:03 of time the processor spent loading them right?
/sarcasm
  Why is it that the people here, on a computing and technology based site, have the shittiest, low end, antiquated computer equipment around?
The actual users of the extensions don't care AT ALL that it takes that tiny fraction more to view their sites without ads or whatever else it is that helps them get their browsing done better/faster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370420</id>
	<title>Re:No AdBlock? No Chrome for me.</title>
	<author>Thinboy00</author>
	<datestamp>1260267180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The link (to the AB+-like extension) in TFS is questionable... <a href="https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/cfhdojbkjhnklbpkdaibdccddilifddb" title="google.com">this is arguably a better target</a> [google.com].  OTOH, reviews are mixed (see for yourself).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The link ( to the AB + -like extension ) in TFS is questionable... this is arguably a better target [ google.com ] .
OTOH , reviews are mixed ( see for yourself ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The link (to the AB+-like extension) in TFS is questionable... this is arguably a better target [google.com].
OTOH, reviews are mixed (see for yourself).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30417540</id>
	<title>Re:Take on AdBlock?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260614820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If someone can't figure out how to run a business without pissing off their customers, a competitor will take over. It isn't that hard.</p><p>If a website I visit regularly has horrible ads I will block them, if they go out of business I couldn't care less and will hapilly search for an alternative with acceptible ads. If the ads cannot be blocked I will find that other site right away. This has worked well for me over the years.</p><p>Remeber, the largest and most succesful ad platform is almost entirely plain text ads (google). Flash and image ads aren't needed to run a business.</p><p>Usually I don't block all ads, just flash. It's good enough for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If someone ca n't figure out how to run a business without pissing off their customers , a competitor will take over .
It is n't that hard.If a website I visit regularly has horrible ads I will block them , if they go out of business I could n't care less and will hapilly search for an alternative with acceptible ads .
If the ads can not be blocked I will find that other site right away .
This has worked well for me over the years.Remeber , the largest and most succesful ad platform is almost entirely plain text ads ( google ) .
Flash and image ads are n't needed to run a business.Usually I do n't block all ads , just flash .
It 's good enough for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If someone can't figure out how to run a business without pissing off their customers, a competitor will take over.
It isn't that hard.If a website I visit regularly has horrible ads I will block them, if they go out of business I couldn't care less and will hapilly search for an alternative with acceptible ads.
If the ads cannot be blocked I will find that other site right away.
This has worked well for me over the years.Remeber, the largest and most succesful ad platform is almost entirely plain text ads (google).
Flash and image ads aren't needed to run a business.Usually I don't block all ads, just flash.
It's good enough for me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369898</id>
	<title>Making available != the thing itself</title>
	<author>BForrester</author>
	<datestamp>1260264660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Available extensions don't make a product bloated.  They provide the opportunity to bloat it up if the user so desires it.</p><p>Similarly, my offer of companionship last night doesn't make your mom a whore.  What - huh?  We're only supposed to do car analogies?  Well, we were in her car when opportunity knocked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Available extensions do n't make a product bloated .
They provide the opportunity to bloat it up if the user so desires it.Similarly , my offer of companionship last night does n't make your mom a whore .
What - huh ?
We 're only supposed to do car analogies ?
Well , we were in her car when opportunity knocked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Available extensions don't make a product bloated.
They provide the opportunity to bloat it up if the user so desires it.Similarly, my offer of companionship last night doesn't make your mom a whore.
What - huh?
We're only supposed to do car analogies?
Well, we were in her car when opportunity knocked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370164</id>
	<title>Re:Take on AdBlock?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260266160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, in summary, if we block the ads, we'll have the internet of 1992, which I rather enjoyed?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , in summary , if we block the ads , we 'll have the internet of 1992 , which I rather enjoyed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, in summary, if we block the ads, we'll have the internet of 1992, which I rather enjoyed?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370660</id>
	<title>Bloat?</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1260268500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I make very little use of extensions, so I've always assumed that the bloaty behaviour I'd seen from Firefox was largely due to something other than extensions.  Mostly, I think the thing which slows my system to a crawl is Flash having a tantrum on a frequent basis, which doesn't change much across browsers.  Chrome is good because it makes it easier to kill off Flash.  But earlier today the browser to eat my memory sufficiently rapidly that it took about an hour to get access again and kill it properly.  I'm blaming Flash for that.  *sigh*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I make very little use of extensions , so I 've always assumed that the bloaty behaviour I 'd seen from Firefox was largely due to something other than extensions .
Mostly , I think the thing which slows my system to a crawl is Flash having a tantrum on a frequent basis , which does n't change much across browsers .
Chrome is good because it makes it easier to kill off Flash .
But earlier today the browser to eat my memory sufficiently rapidly that it took about an hour to get access again and kill it properly .
I 'm blaming Flash for that .
* sigh *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I make very little use of extensions, so I've always assumed that the bloaty behaviour I'd seen from Firefox was largely due to something other than extensions.
Mostly, I think the thing which slows my system to a crawl is Flash having a tantrum on a frequent basis, which doesn't change much across browsers.
Chrome is good because it makes it easier to kill off Flash.
But earlier today the browser to eat my memory sufficiently rapidly that it took about an hour to get access again and kill it properly.
I'm blaming Flash for that.
*sigh*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371936</id>
	<title>Re:Take on AdBlock?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260274920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, but I like to be in control of my bandwidth usage and sanity level. Ads are more obnoxious than you can imagine and slow down my internet experience. It's not our job to fix or sustain your business model.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but I like to be in control of my bandwidth usage and sanity level .
Ads are more obnoxious than you can imagine and slow down my internet experience .
It 's not our job to fix or sustain your business model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but I like to be in control of my bandwidth usage and sanity level.
Ads are more obnoxious than you can imagine and slow down my internet experience.
It's not our job to fix or sustain your business model.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30384788</id>
	<title>Re:SRWare Iron and firefoxs addons</title>
	<author>LordLimecat</author>
	<datestamp>1259600340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So you worry that being able to add on features or remove them makes chrome bloated, but then extol Opera's kitchen-sink approah (not that I have anything against Opera)<br> <br>

A lot of people seem to have this line of thought, and it makes no sense to me.  How does having a streamlined browser with the ability to add missing features at the user's discretion make the browser itself bloated?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So you worry that being able to add on features or remove them makes chrome bloated , but then extol Opera 's kitchen-sink approah ( not that I have anything against Opera ) A lot of people seem to have this line of thought , and it makes no sense to me .
How does having a streamlined browser with the ability to add missing features at the user 's discretion make the browser itself bloated ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you worry that being able to add on features or remove them makes chrome bloated, but then extol Opera's kitchen-sink approah (not that I have anything against Opera) 

A lot of people seem to have this line of thought, and it makes no sense to me.
How does having a streamlined browser with the ability to add missing features at the user's discretion make the browser itself bloated?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369678</id>
	<title>Firefox bloat comes not from extensions...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260263520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...but from the fact that too many features that should be included as extensions (to be enabled and disabled at will) are hard-coded. There would be no controversy about the "Awesome Bar" if it was just an included Add-On that could be disabled/removed, and likewise for a slew of other features people complain about.</p><p>If Chrome keeps the browser to a bare minimum and implements fancy features through extensions, I think they'll have a huge advantage over the current Firefox implementation on this merrit alone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...but from the fact that too many features that should be included as extensions ( to be enabled and disabled at will ) are hard-coded .
There would be no controversy about the " Awesome Bar " if it was just an included Add-On that could be disabled/removed , and likewise for a slew of other features people complain about.If Chrome keeps the browser to a bare minimum and implements fancy features through extensions , I think they 'll have a huge advantage over the current Firefox implementation on this merrit alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but from the fact that too many features that should be included as extensions (to be enabled and disabled at will) are hard-coded.
There would be no controversy about the "Awesome Bar" if it was just an included Add-On that could be disabled/removed, and likewise for a slew of other features people complain about.If Chrome keeps the browser to a bare minimum and implements fancy features through extensions, I think they'll have a huge advantage over the current Firefox implementation on this merrit alone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30373810</id>
	<title>Re:No adblock</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260289740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/ajpgkpeckebdhofmmjfgcjjiiejpodla" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">xmarks</a> [google.com]<br><a href="https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/kcahibnffhnnjcedflmchmokndkjnhpg" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">stumbleupon</a> [google.com]<br><a href="https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkkbiglidom" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">adblock</a> [google.com]<br><a href="https://chrome.google.com/extensions/search?q=later" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">read-me-later alternatives</a> [google.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>xmarks [ google.com ] stumbleupon [ google.com ] adblock [ google.com ] read-me-later alternatives [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>xmarks [google.com]stumbleupon [google.com]adblock [google.com]read-me-later alternatives [google.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371258</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>dave562</author>
	<datestamp>1260271140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the other hand, with financing deals these days because resellers are so desperate to make sales, it isn't exactly a brain dead move to finance a $1,000+ purchase.  Best Buy just gave me 3 years of 0\% interest when I bought my new Samsung LCD set.  The payments come out to less than $30 a month.  I could have paid cash for it, but I'd rather let the cash sit some place that it is earning interest for the next three years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , with financing deals these days because resellers are so desperate to make sales , it is n't exactly a brain dead move to finance a $ 1,000 + purchase .
Best Buy just gave me 3 years of 0 \ % interest when I bought my new Samsung LCD set .
The payments come out to less than $ 30 a month .
I could have paid cash for it , but I 'd rather let the cash sit some place that it is earning interest for the next three years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, with financing deals these days because resellers are so desperate to make sales, it isn't exactly a brain dead move to finance a $1,000+ purchase.
Best Buy just gave me 3 years of 0\% interest when I bought my new Samsung LCD set.
The payments come out to less than $30 a month.
I could have paid cash for it, but I'd rather let the cash sit some place that it is earning interest for the next three years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044</id>
	<title>Take on AdBlock?</title>
	<author>peterwayner</author>
	<datestamp>1260265440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As someone who makes his living selling content through the Internet, I want people to think several times before building a tool like AdBlock. If the content industry can't make money from ads, we'll either go out of business or put our information behind a paywall. That may happen whether or not you create the ad block extension because ads don't generate enough money to pay for the kind of reporting that newspapers used to do, but it will definitely happen if a tool for blocking ads gets adopted by any non-trivial subset of society.</p><p>I understand that advertisements can be annoying and often temperamental, but tools like this are rarely as precise as they should be. They usually end up blocking far more unless the user spends more time monkeying with the config files than it would take to actually glance at the ads or wait for them to finish their flash animation.</p><p>Also I want to remind people that some open source projects like Firefox depend on advertisements for their support. Google itself depends almost entirely upon ads for their revenue. While I recognize that many of their ads were historically unobtrusive, they are selling more and more display ads.</p><p>An ad blocker for Google chrome will not only hurt Google but slice into Google's revenues and undercut their ability to pay for more development. Okay, you say, let's be selfish and ensure that the ad blocker won't block Google ads. That's clever, but it still hurts Google because it hurts the free information ecosystem which is what drives Google. If there's no free information, there's fewer and fewer things for Google to index and thus fewer and fewer reasons to look at Google ads.</p><p>Please consider the long term consequences for building such a tool. The information ecology is much more fragile than you can imagine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who makes his living selling content through the Internet , I want people to think several times before building a tool like AdBlock .
If the content industry ca n't make money from ads , we 'll either go out of business or put our information behind a paywall .
That may happen whether or not you create the ad block extension because ads do n't generate enough money to pay for the kind of reporting that newspapers used to do , but it will definitely happen if a tool for blocking ads gets adopted by any non-trivial subset of society.I understand that advertisements can be annoying and often temperamental , but tools like this are rarely as precise as they should be .
They usually end up blocking far more unless the user spends more time monkeying with the config files than it would take to actually glance at the ads or wait for them to finish their flash animation.Also I want to remind people that some open source projects like Firefox depend on advertisements for their support .
Google itself depends almost entirely upon ads for their revenue .
While I recognize that many of their ads were historically unobtrusive , they are selling more and more display ads.An ad blocker for Google chrome will not only hurt Google but slice into Google 's revenues and undercut their ability to pay for more development .
Okay , you say , let 's be selfish and ensure that the ad blocker wo n't block Google ads .
That 's clever , but it still hurts Google because it hurts the free information ecosystem which is what drives Google .
If there 's no free information , there 's fewer and fewer things for Google to index and thus fewer and fewer reasons to look at Google ads.Please consider the long term consequences for building such a tool .
The information ecology is much more fragile than you can imagine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who makes his living selling content through the Internet, I want people to think several times before building a tool like AdBlock.
If the content industry can't make money from ads, we'll either go out of business or put our information behind a paywall.
That may happen whether or not you create the ad block extension because ads don't generate enough money to pay for the kind of reporting that newspapers used to do, but it will definitely happen if a tool for blocking ads gets adopted by any non-trivial subset of society.I understand that advertisements can be annoying and often temperamental, but tools like this are rarely as precise as they should be.
They usually end up blocking far more unless the user spends more time monkeying with the config files than it would take to actually glance at the ads or wait for them to finish their flash animation.Also I want to remind people that some open source projects like Firefox depend on advertisements for their support.
Google itself depends almost entirely upon ads for their revenue.
While I recognize that many of their ads were historically unobtrusive, they are selling more and more display ads.An ad blocker for Google chrome will not only hurt Google but slice into Google's revenues and undercut their ability to pay for more development.
Okay, you say, let's be selfish and ensure that the ad blocker won't block Google ads.
That's clever, but it still hurts Google because it hurts the free information ecosystem which is what drives Google.
If there's no free information, there's fewer and fewer things for Google to index and thus fewer and fewer reasons to look at Google ads.Please consider the long term consequences for building such a tool.
The information ecology is much more fragile than you can imagine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369752</id>
	<title>Re:No AdBlock? No Chrome for me.</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1260263820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I browse without AdBlock and I'm perfectly happy. I do use Ad Muncher however, as it works system-wide with all browsers (incl Chrome).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I browse without AdBlock and I 'm perfectly happy .
I do use Ad Muncher however , as it works system-wide with all browsers ( incl Chrome ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I browse without AdBlock and I'm perfectly happy.
I do use Ad Muncher however, as it works system-wide with all browsers (incl Chrome).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371504</id>
	<title>Re:SRWare Iron and firefoxs addons</title>
	<author>pnewhook</author>
	<datestamp>1260272400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't find the extensions clumsy - I just found too many sites that didn't work quite right with Firefox. Chrome doesn't seem to have that problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't find the extensions clumsy - I just found too many sites that did n't work quite right with Firefox .
Chrome does n't seem to have that problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't find the extensions clumsy - I just found too many sites that didn't work quite right with Firefox.
Chrome doesn't seem to have that problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370064</id>
	<title>Re:SRWare Iron and firefoxs addons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260265560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm guessing you didn't read much of the site then.</p><p><a href="http://www.srware.net/en/software\_srware\_iron\_chrome\_vs\_iron.php" title="srware.net" rel="nofollow">Whats the difference beetwen Iron and Chrome?</a> [srware.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm guessing you did n't read much of the site then.Whats the difference beetwen Iron and Chrome ?
[ srware.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm guessing you didn't read much of the site then.Whats the difference beetwen Iron and Chrome?
[srware.net]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369954</id>
	<title>No Script</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260265020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Screw Ad Block, What I want is NoScript.</p><p>I perfer the look and feel of chrome, But there are times I can't live without noscript</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Screw Ad Block , What I want is NoScript.I perfer the look and feel of chrome , But there are times I ca n't live without noscript</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Screw Ad Block, What I want is NoScript.I perfer the look and feel of chrome, But there are times I can't live without noscript</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370560</id>
	<title>Xmarks?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260268020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does anybody have any experience with Xmarks in Chrome? I want to try it out ASAP, as it's the only thing preventing me from using Chrome full-time, but I get scared away with very beta software like this-- I'm afraid it'll delete all my bookmarks.</p><p>Any opinions?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anybody have any experience with Xmarks in Chrome ?
I want to try it out ASAP , as it 's the only thing preventing me from using Chrome full-time , but I get scared away with very beta software like this-- I 'm afraid it 'll delete all my bookmarks.Any opinions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anybody have any experience with Xmarks in Chrome?
I want to try it out ASAP, as it's the only thing preventing me from using Chrome full-time, but I get scared away with very beta software like this-- I'm afraid it'll delete all my bookmarks.Any opinions?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30372186</id>
	<title>Re:You guys want Adblock? You've got Adblock!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260276420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Trying to install that adblock and it throws up a warning that the adblock extension with have access to your private information on api.flikr........ I shut it down immediately</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Trying to install that adblock and it throws up a warning that the adblock extension with have access to your private information on api.flikr........ I shut it down immediately</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trying to install that adblock and it throws up a warning that the adblock extension with have access to your private information on api.flikr........ I shut it down immediately</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369918</id>
	<title>Hold on, Hold on...</title>
	<author>Azureflare</author>
	<datestamp>1260264780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What is all this talk about how Google Chrome violates your privacy? Does it send a list of everything I type and every site I go to, to Google?<br> <br>

Is there an option to turn it off? If there isn't a way to turn it off, I'm going back to Firefox.  I don't want to use some third party hack of Chrome, thanks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is all this talk about how Google Chrome violates your privacy ?
Does it send a list of everything I type and every site I go to , to Google ?
Is there an option to turn it off ?
If there is n't a way to turn it off , I 'm going back to Firefox .
I do n't want to use some third party hack of Chrome , thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is all this talk about how Google Chrome violates your privacy?
Does it send a list of everything I type and every site I go to, to Google?
Is there an option to turn it off?
If there isn't a way to turn it off, I'm going back to Firefox.
I don't want to use some third party hack of Chrome, thanks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370002</id>
	<title>Bloat...</title>
	<author>SanityInAnarchy</author>
	<datestamp>1260265260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I've just dealt with Adblock in another post -- there are several adblocking extensions, and I wrote one myself in an afternoon. Trust me, adblock will happen, whether Google wants it or not.</p><p>So now let's talk about bloat...</p><p>First, I won't lie. It's a very real possibility. Take something like an adblocker -- in Chrome, that would be implemented as at least a "content script", a script which runs on every page. Every content script is adding some finite but real cost to the pages it effects. And of course, poor extension design would lead to a bloated browser.</p><p>On the other hand, no one's forcing you to install extensions, and a bare Chrome is much lighter than a bare Firefox.</p><p>Also, consider a properly designed extension -- you're going to have some of it running in the page as a content script, you might have some buttons in the toolbar, but chances are, you're also going to have a bunch of logic in a "background page", doing things like making HTTP requests, talking to your local sqlite database, messing with your bookmarks and tabs, and so on. A background page is essentially an HTML page that gets loaded in the background, and is completely invisible, except that scripts on it can talk to other parts of your extension. Add to that the fact that every popup, even configuration, is a separate HTML page, and communication between all of these happens through a message-passing API.</p><p>What does all of that mean?</p><p>It means that a fair chunk of every extension, including the glue that ties it together, is happening in a Background Page, which could very well be a separate process. I'm also fairly sure you can have more than one background page per extension. This means that almost by default, you have a certain amount of concurrency built in. So it might bloat, maybe, but it's certainly going to mean less chance for extensions to directly lag you, if they're all in a separate process -- possibly using a separate core.</p><p>Plus, v8 just screams.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I 've just dealt with Adblock in another post -- there are several adblocking extensions , and I wrote one myself in an afternoon .
Trust me , adblock will happen , whether Google wants it or not.So now let 's talk about bloat...First , I wo n't lie .
It 's a very real possibility .
Take something like an adblocker -- in Chrome , that would be implemented as at least a " content script " , a script which runs on every page .
Every content script is adding some finite but real cost to the pages it effects .
And of course , poor extension design would lead to a bloated browser.On the other hand , no one 's forcing you to install extensions , and a bare Chrome is much lighter than a bare Firefox.Also , consider a properly designed extension -- you 're going to have some of it running in the page as a content script , you might have some buttons in the toolbar , but chances are , you 're also going to have a bunch of logic in a " background page " , doing things like making HTTP requests , talking to your local sqlite database , messing with your bookmarks and tabs , and so on .
A background page is essentially an HTML page that gets loaded in the background , and is completely invisible , except that scripts on it can talk to other parts of your extension .
Add to that the fact that every popup , even configuration , is a separate HTML page , and communication between all of these happens through a message-passing API.What does all of that mean ? It means that a fair chunk of every extension , including the glue that ties it together , is happening in a Background Page , which could very well be a separate process .
I 'm also fairly sure you can have more than one background page per extension .
This means that almost by default , you have a certain amount of concurrency built in .
So it might bloat , maybe , but it 's certainly going to mean less chance for extensions to directly lag you , if they 're all in a separate process -- possibly using a separate core.Plus , v8 just screams .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I've just dealt with Adblock in another post -- there are several adblocking extensions, and I wrote one myself in an afternoon.
Trust me, adblock will happen, whether Google wants it or not.So now let's talk about bloat...First, I won't lie.
It's a very real possibility.
Take something like an adblocker -- in Chrome, that would be implemented as at least a "content script", a script which runs on every page.
Every content script is adding some finite but real cost to the pages it effects.
And of course, poor extension design would lead to a bloated browser.On the other hand, no one's forcing you to install extensions, and a bare Chrome is much lighter than a bare Firefox.Also, consider a properly designed extension -- you're going to have some of it running in the page as a content script, you might have some buttons in the toolbar, but chances are, you're also going to have a bunch of logic in a "background page", doing things like making HTTP requests, talking to your local sqlite database, messing with your bookmarks and tabs, and so on.
A background page is essentially an HTML page that gets loaded in the background, and is completely invisible, except that scripts on it can talk to other parts of your extension.
Add to that the fact that every popup, even configuration, is a separate HTML page, and communication between all of these happens through a message-passing API.What does all of that mean?It means that a fair chunk of every extension, including the glue that ties it together, is happening in a Background Page, which could very well be a separate process.
I'm also fairly sure you can have more than one background page per extension.
This means that almost by default, you have a certain amount of concurrency built in.
So it might bloat, maybe, but it's certainly going to mean less chance for extensions to directly lag you, if they're all in a separate process -- possibly using a separate core.Plus, v8 just screams.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371066</id>
	<title>Obligatory.</title>
	<author>billsayswow</author>
	<datestamp>1260270240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yo dawg, we heard you like chrome, so we put some chrome on your Chrome so you...   anyways, I truly don't see why you can complain about something becoming 'bloated' by add-ons. If it does, it's really your fault.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yo dawg , we heard you like chrome , so we put some chrome on your Chrome so you... anyways , I truly do n't see why you can complain about something becoming 'bloated ' by add-ons .
If it does , it 's really your fault .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yo dawg, we heard you like chrome, so we put some chrome on your Chrome so you...   anyways, I truly don't see why you can complain about something becoming 'bloated' by add-ons.
If it does, it's really your fault.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30372698</id>
	<title>Re:Take on AdBlock?</title>
	<author>pod</author>
	<datestamp>1260279600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As someone who makes his living selling content through the Internet, I want people to think several times before building a tool like AdBlock. If the content industry can't make money from ads, we'll either go out of business or put our information behind a paywall. That may happen whether or not you create the ad block extension because ads don't generate enough money to pay for the kind of reporting that newspapers used to do, but it will definitely happen if a tool for blocking ads gets adopted by any non-trivial subset of society.</p></div><p>That's blowback.</p><p>The internet was not made to provide for your income. It does not owe you anything. It is up to you to figure out how to use the internet to make money, and if the majority (or large portion) of the internet has vetoed ads, the message seems pretty clear.</p><p>There is plenty of professional-quality content available today, some of it surviving just fine without an ad in sight, amongst a sea of ad-supported content. If I were you, I would not ask how ad-supported content will survive without ads, but how non-ad-supported content thrives. How can one make money, even without an apparent revenue stream.</p><p>Most of the professional-quality ad-free content is basically a giant ad itself. An ad for the services, expertise, knowledge, skills and product of the writer who produced it.</p><p>That's just one way. You're looking for the easy way out, because "that's how it's always been and I cannot imagine any other way". But you're wrong.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who makes his living selling content through the Internet , I want people to think several times before building a tool like AdBlock .
If the content industry ca n't make money from ads , we 'll either go out of business or put our information behind a paywall .
That may happen whether or not you create the ad block extension because ads do n't generate enough money to pay for the kind of reporting that newspapers used to do , but it will definitely happen if a tool for blocking ads gets adopted by any non-trivial subset of society.That 's blowback.The internet was not made to provide for your income .
It does not owe you anything .
It is up to you to figure out how to use the internet to make money , and if the majority ( or large portion ) of the internet has vetoed ads , the message seems pretty clear.There is plenty of professional-quality content available today , some of it surviving just fine without an ad in sight , amongst a sea of ad-supported content .
If I were you , I would not ask how ad-supported content will survive without ads , but how non-ad-supported content thrives .
How can one make money , even without an apparent revenue stream.Most of the professional-quality ad-free content is basically a giant ad itself .
An ad for the services , expertise , knowledge , skills and product of the writer who produced it.That 's just one way .
You 're looking for the easy way out , because " that 's how it 's always been and I can not imagine any other way " .
But you 're wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who makes his living selling content through the Internet, I want people to think several times before building a tool like AdBlock.
If the content industry can't make money from ads, we'll either go out of business or put our information behind a paywall.
That may happen whether or not you create the ad block extension because ads don't generate enough money to pay for the kind of reporting that newspapers used to do, but it will definitely happen if a tool for blocking ads gets adopted by any non-trivial subset of society.That's blowback.The internet was not made to provide for your income.
It does not owe you anything.
It is up to you to figure out how to use the internet to make money, and if the majority (or large portion) of the internet has vetoed ads, the message seems pretty clear.There is plenty of professional-quality content available today, some of it surviving just fine without an ad in sight, amongst a sea of ad-supported content.
If I were you, I would not ask how ad-supported content will survive without ads, but how non-ad-supported content thrives.
How can one make money, even without an apparent revenue stream.Most of the professional-quality ad-free content is basically a giant ad itself.
An ad for the services, expertise, knowledge, skills and product of the writer who produced it.That's just one way.
You're looking for the easy way out, because "that's how it's always been and I cannot imagine any other way".
But you're wrong.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369734</id>
	<title>Re:No AdBlock? No Chrome for me.</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1260263820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do, over a modem.</p><p>I would guess that I do end up avoiding sites with a lot of ads though, and I do use flashblock (which mitigates a lot of the beeping and cpu-grinding and whatnot).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do , over a modem.I would guess that I do end up avoiding sites with a lot of ads though , and I do use flashblock ( which mitigates a lot of the beeping and cpu-grinding and whatnot ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do, over a modem.I would guess that I do end up avoiding sites with a lot of ads though, and I do use flashblock (which mitigates a lot of the beeping and cpu-grinding and whatnot).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30372520</id>
	<title>Re:Extensions security?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260278340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>All mozilla extensions on addons.mozilla.org go through a review process. Stuff might slip through, but its unlikely that unwanted behaviour in popular addons isn't noticed. The addons are distributed over SSL.</p></div><p>And are the updates properly secured with digital signatures? Otherwise dns poisoning or open wireless MITM is all that is needed..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All mozilla extensions on addons.mozilla.org go through a review process .
Stuff might slip through , but its unlikely that unwanted behaviour in popular addons is n't noticed .
The addons are distributed over SSL.And are the updates properly secured with digital signatures ?
Otherwise dns poisoning or open wireless MITM is all that is needed. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All mozilla extensions on addons.mozilla.org go through a review process.
Stuff might slip through, but its unlikely that unwanted behaviour in popular addons isn't noticed.
The addons are distributed over SSL.And are the updates properly secured with digital signatures?
Otherwise dns poisoning or open wireless MITM is all that is needed..
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369812</id>
	<title>Only as bloated as you let it</title>
	<author>jbarr</author>
	<datestamp>1260264120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the article:</p><blockquote><div><p>"Does the availability of extensions put Chrome at risk of becoming bloated, like many complain about with Firefox?"</p></div></blockquote><p>The availability of extensions has nothing to do with potential bloat. It's how many extensions you add. Adding extensions for adding's sake will certainly cause bloat, but smart, targeted extension selection can keep things very lean. My Firefox install is efficient (for me) and lean.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article : " Does the availability of extensions put Chrome at risk of becoming bloated , like many complain about with Firefox ?
" The availability of extensions has nothing to do with potential bloat .
It 's how many extensions you add .
Adding extensions for adding 's sake will certainly cause bloat , but smart , targeted extension selection can keep things very lean .
My Firefox install is efficient ( for me ) and lean .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article:"Does the availability of extensions put Chrome at risk of becoming bloated, like many complain about with Firefox?
"The availability of extensions has nothing to do with potential bloat.
It's how many extensions you add.
Adding extensions for adding's sake will certainly cause bloat, but smart, targeted extension selection can keep things very lean.
My Firefox install is efficient (for me) and lean.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369720</id>
	<title>Re:SRWare Iron and firefoxs addons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260263700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Even though I'm a little bit skeptical about the bloated aspect, hopefully SRWare Iron will be updated to support them soon too. Iron is Chrome but with all the things that violate your privacy removed.</p></div><p>That site reads like a Chinese scam site.</p><p>Seriously, it might be OK but it's so unprofessional that I wonder if they even know what they are doing in the first place.</p><p>No thanks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even though I 'm a little bit skeptical about the bloated aspect , hopefully SRWare Iron will be updated to support them soon too .
Iron is Chrome but with all the things that violate your privacy removed.That site reads like a Chinese scam site.Seriously , it might be OK but it 's so unprofessional that I wonder if they even know what they are doing in the first place.No thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even though I'm a little bit skeptical about the bloated aspect, hopefully SRWare Iron will be updated to support them soon too.
Iron is Chrome but with all the things that violate your privacy removed.That site reads like a Chinese scam site.Seriously, it might be OK but it's so unprofessional that I wonder if they even know what they are doing in the first place.No thanks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30375114</id>
	<title>Use AdThwart instead</title>
	<author>Cato</author>
	<datestamp>1259573700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AdThwart is a much better ad blocking extension for Chrome than Adblock+.  AdThwart uses the EasyList from Firefox's Adblock Plus, and it seems to block everything pretty well.  It's totally unconfigurable but since EasyList works very well that's fine by me.   AdThwart is at <a href="https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/cfhdojbkjhnklbpkdaibdccddilifddb" title="google.com">https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/cfhdojbkjhnklbpkdaibdccddilifddb</a> [google.com]</p><p>On Ubuntu Hardy, I find that this version works well: 4.0.267.0~svn20091208r34029-0ubuntu1~ucd1~hardy (from the Ubuntu Chromium PPA).  Once you find a version that works well it's best to hold it in your package manager (e.g. "wajig hold" on Ubuntu or Debian) so that you don't get a daily update to a version that crashes on launch, as happened to me recently.  Generally Chromium is very impressive for an alpha browser (I'm using the dev channel on Ubuntu via the PPA at <a href="https://launchpad.net/~chromium-daily/+archive/ppa" title="launchpad.net">https://launchpad.net/~chromium-daily/+archive/ppa</a> [launchpad.net] ) - very fast, and leaves maximum screen area for content.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AdThwart is a much better ad blocking extension for Chrome than Adblock + .
AdThwart uses the EasyList from Firefox 's Adblock Plus , and it seems to block everything pretty well .
It 's totally unconfigurable but since EasyList works very well that 's fine by me .
AdThwart is at https : //chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/cfhdojbkjhnklbpkdaibdccddilifddb [ google.com ] On Ubuntu Hardy , I find that this version works well : 4.0.267.0 ~ svn20091208r34029-0ubuntu1 ~ ucd1 ~ hardy ( from the Ubuntu Chromium PPA ) .
Once you find a version that works well it 's best to hold it in your package manager ( e.g .
" wajig hold " on Ubuntu or Debian ) so that you do n't get a daily update to a version that crashes on launch , as happened to me recently .
Generally Chromium is very impressive for an alpha browser ( I 'm using the dev channel on Ubuntu via the PPA at https : //launchpad.net/ ~ chromium-daily/ + archive/ppa [ launchpad.net ] ) - very fast , and leaves maximum screen area for content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AdThwart is a much better ad blocking extension for Chrome than Adblock+.
AdThwart uses the EasyList from Firefox's Adblock Plus, and it seems to block everything pretty well.
It's totally unconfigurable but since EasyList works very well that's fine by me.
AdThwart is at https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/cfhdojbkjhnklbpkdaibdccddilifddb [google.com]On Ubuntu Hardy, I find that this version works well: 4.0.267.0~svn20091208r34029-0ubuntu1~ucd1~hardy (from the Ubuntu Chromium PPA).
Once you find a version that works well it's best to hold it in your package manager (e.g.
"wajig hold" on Ubuntu or Debian) so that you don't get a daily update to a version that crashes on launch, as happened to me recently.
Generally Chromium is very impressive for an alpha browser (I'm using the dev channel on Ubuntu via the PPA at https://launchpad.net/~chromium-daily/+archive/ppa [launchpad.net] ) - very fast, and leaves maximum screen area for content.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370852</id>
	<title>Re:Take on AdBlock?</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1260269340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have no doubt that there could be some far reaching consequences of blocking all advertising out of the majority of folk's lives on the economy. In fact, I would imagine that it would require quite a few industries to rebuild significant parts of their business model from the ground up. It might even, eventually, force certain parts of the economy into bankruptcy and blackout, like, say, companies that rely on ad-revenue for profit. So yes, I agree, there could be far reaching consequences to the business world if tools like AdBlock get adopted en masse.
<br> <br>
However, I do not believe that would be the doom and gloom and end all be all of good products or good companies. Frankly, I am damn tired of company after company trying to cram their useless shite down my throat when I haven't asked for it:
<br> <br>
"Buy a shamwow! That towel you use right now isn't nearly good enough! By something that does the exact same thing instead!"<br>
"Buy our penis enlargement pills! Your dick doesn't *really* please your wife/girlfriend! Trust us! We know penises!"<br>
"Buy this new car! You don't need to keep the car you've had for 5 years! Cars are a short term commodity that should be recycled every 3 years!"<br>
"Buy our new piece of software! Using free, open source alternatives is difficult and scary! We'll protect you!"<br>
<br>
Give me a break. If I need/want something, I will go out and find out information about it via trusted sources. I don't need or want companies spamming me with flashing lights and catchy jingles (I swear to God, Old Navy, you are hellborn spawn of the devil itself) everywhere I turn. I don't want to go to my myspace page to e-mail my old HS friends only to have to watch full length production commercial pop ups about why the new anti-depression drug will make my life less suck and more awesome. I only want to hear about things relative to my life when I want to find that information. Why? Because if I am shopping for a new car, hearing about a no-down introductory fixed rate apr in a 45 second info. dump to my brain is not going to be something I remember. I will filter it out, and forget it, and then, when I do MY research, I will write it down in my notebook and remember it because I was looking for it.
<br> <br>
My point is, the only reason that ad-revenue is a fundamental part of our economy, right now (if it is), is because our society made the false assumption that people want to have crap sold to them. Some of us already don't, and, I would wager, more folk are getting to the point that they don't want to be marketed to any longer. So what happens if we start letting the ad-industry fail? Will Google fail? Will twitter fail? Will facebook fail? Maybe. Or, maybe, they will do exactly what humans have been doing since before the Egyptians built the pyramids. That is, maybe they will adapt. Maybe services will go to a paywall model. Maybe some will offer a *gold membership* model (like slashdot). Maybe some will become donation/non-profit entities. Hell, maybe some business-majors will have to actually innovate for once (and earn part of their overblown salaries) and write an entirely NEW business model that helps both the customer and the company. Shock and awe, wouldn't that be one helluva development.
<br> <br>
So sure, caution about the possible repercussions of ad-blockers. However, the way I figure it, society will adapt without advertisements and may just become the better for it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no doubt that there could be some far reaching consequences of blocking all advertising out of the majority of folk 's lives on the economy .
In fact , I would imagine that it would require quite a few industries to rebuild significant parts of their business model from the ground up .
It might even , eventually , force certain parts of the economy into bankruptcy and blackout , like , say , companies that rely on ad-revenue for profit .
So yes , I agree , there could be far reaching consequences to the business world if tools like AdBlock get adopted en masse .
However , I do not believe that would be the doom and gloom and end all be all of good products or good companies .
Frankly , I am damn tired of company after company trying to cram their useless shite down my throat when I have n't asked for it : " Buy a shamwow !
That towel you use right now is n't nearly good enough !
By something that does the exact same thing instead !
" " Buy our penis enlargement pills !
Your dick does n't * really * please your wife/girlfriend !
Trust us !
We know penises !
" " Buy this new car !
You do n't need to keep the car you 've had for 5 years !
Cars are a short term commodity that should be recycled every 3 years !
" " Buy our new piece of software !
Using free , open source alternatives is difficult and scary !
We 'll protect you !
" Give me a break .
If I need/want something , I will go out and find out information about it via trusted sources .
I do n't need or want companies spamming me with flashing lights and catchy jingles ( I swear to God , Old Navy , you are hellborn spawn of the devil itself ) everywhere I turn .
I do n't want to go to my myspace page to e-mail my old HS friends only to have to watch full length production commercial pop ups about why the new anti-depression drug will make my life less suck and more awesome .
I only want to hear about things relative to my life when I want to find that information .
Why ? Because if I am shopping for a new car , hearing about a no-down introductory fixed rate apr in a 45 second info .
dump to my brain is not going to be something I remember .
I will filter it out , and forget it , and then , when I do MY research , I will write it down in my notebook and remember it because I was looking for it .
My point is , the only reason that ad-revenue is a fundamental part of our economy , right now ( if it is ) , is because our society made the false assumption that people want to have crap sold to them .
Some of us already do n't , and , I would wager , more folk are getting to the point that they do n't want to be marketed to any longer .
So what happens if we start letting the ad-industry fail ?
Will Google fail ?
Will twitter fail ?
Will facebook fail ?
Maybe. Or , maybe , they will do exactly what humans have been doing since before the Egyptians built the pyramids .
That is , maybe they will adapt .
Maybe services will go to a paywall model .
Maybe some will offer a * gold membership * model ( like slashdot ) .
Maybe some will become donation/non-profit entities .
Hell , maybe some business-majors will have to actually innovate for once ( and earn part of their overblown salaries ) and write an entirely NEW business model that helps both the customer and the company .
Shock and awe , would n't that be one helluva development .
So sure , caution about the possible repercussions of ad-blockers .
However , the way I figure it , society will adapt without advertisements and may just become the better for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no doubt that there could be some far reaching consequences of blocking all advertising out of the majority of folk's lives on the economy.
In fact, I would imagine that it would require quite a few industries to rebuild significant parts of their business model from the ground up.
It might even, eventually, force certain parts of the economy into bankruptcy and blackout, like, say, companies that rely on ad-revenue for profit.
So yes, I agree, there could be far reaching consequences to the business world if tools like AdBlock get adopted en masse.
However, I do not believe that would be the doom and gloom and end all be all of good products or good companies.
Frankly, I am damn tired of company after company trying to cram their useless shite down my throat when I haven't asked for it:
 
"Buy a shamwow!
That towel you use right now isn't nearly good enough!
By something that does the exact same thing instead!
"
"Buy our penis enlargement pills!
Your dick doesn't *really* please your wife/girlfriend!
Trust us!
We know penises!
"
"Buy this new car!
You don't need to keep the car you've had for 5 years!
Cars are a short term commodity that should be recycled every 3 years!
"
"Buy our new piece of software!
Using free, open source alternatives is difficult and scary!
We'll protect you!
"

Give me a break.
If I need/want something, I will go out and find out information about it via trusted sources.
I don't need or want companies spamming me with flashing lights and catchy jingles (I swear to God, Old Navy, you are hellborn spawn of the devil itself) everywhere I turn.
I don't want to go to my myspace page to e-mail my old HS friends only to have to watch full length production commercial pop ups about why the new anti-depression drug will make my life less suck and more awesome.
I only want to hear about things relative to my life when I want to find that information.
Why? Because if I am shopping for a new car, hearing about a no-down introductory fixed rate apr in a 45 second info.
dump to my brain is not going to be something I remember.
I will filter it out, and forget it, and then, when I do MY research, I will write it down in my notebook and remember it because I was looking for it.
My point is, the only reason that ad-revenue is a fundamental part of our economy, right now (if it is), is because our society made the false assumption that people want to have crap sold to them.
Some of us already don't, and, I would wager, more folk are getting to the point that they don't want to be marketed to any longer.
So what happens if we start letting the ad-industry fail?
Will Google fail?
Will twitter fail?
Will facebook fail?
Maybe. Or, maybe, they will do exactly what humans have been doing since before the Egyptians built the pyramids.
That is, maybe they will adapt.
Maybe services will go to a paywall model.
Maybe some will offer a *gold membership* model (like slashdot).
Maybe some will become donation/non-profit entities.
Hell, maybe some business-majors will have to actually innovate for once (and earn part of their overblown salaries) and write an entirely NEW business model that helps both the customer and the company.
Shock and awe, wouldn't that be one helluva development.
So sure, caution about the possible repercussions of ad-blockers.
However, the way I figure it, society will adapt without advertisements and may just become the better for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371990</id>
	<title>Re:Xmarks?</title>
	<author>Thing 1</author>
	<datestamp>1260275160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Test it in a VM (VirtualBox is free).</p><p>2. Back up your bookmarks before you test it on your bare metal.</p><p>Was that so hard?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Test it in a VM ( VirtualBox is free ) .2 .
Back up your bookmarks before you test it on your bare metal.Was that so hard ?
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Test it in a VM (VirtualBox is free).2.
Back up your bookmarks before you test it on your bare metal.Was that so hard?
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30375902</id>
	<title>Re:Extensions security?</title>
	<author>Waccoon</author>
	<datestamp>1259586360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, at least it tells you if an extension has <em>passed</em> the review process.  A lot of extensions are not reviewed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , at least it tells you if an extension has passed the review process .
A lot of extensions are not reviewed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, at least it tells you if an extension has passed the review process.
A lot of extensions are not reviewed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370968</id>
	<title>Re:Take on AdBlock?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260269880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it's good content, I'll find it. If it's worth it, I'll pay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's good content , I 'll find it .
If it 's worth it , I 'll pay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's good content, I'll find it.
If it's worth it, I'll pay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370408</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1260267120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because A) Most of us aren't in the disposable mindset, most of us prefer to re-use working machines B) Most of us have had programming instruction and know that a slow application is the result of crappy coding or a crappy architecture C) Most of us don't take out loans/financing on our toys. You would be surprised the number of people who don't or can't pay cash on their computers, TVs, or other electronics and instead either put them on the credit card so the $1,000 laptop quickly becomes a $1,500 laptop. <br> <br>

If I have a Pentium M laptop with 1 gig of RAM and everything is working fine, there is no reason why things should have to have a multi-core CPU or more RAM unless I'm doing something really CPU/memory intensive (encoding, etc). There is no point in me spending $1,000 more on a new laptop because someone is crap at coding. And honestly, if you can fit a networked GUI onto a floppy disk in assembly, theres no reason why you can't make a decent program in C that runs fine on a Pentium III and 256 MB of RAM or less.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because A ) Most of us are n't in the disposable mindset , most of us prefer to re-use working machines B ) Most of us have had programming instruction and know that a slow application is the result of crappy coding or a crappy architecture C ) Most of us do n't take out loans/financing on our toys .
You would be surprised the number of people who do n't or ca n't pay cash on their computers , TVs , or other electronics and instead either put them on the credit card so the $ 1,000 laptop quickly becomes a $ 1,500 laptop .
If I have a Pentium M laptop with 1 gig of RAM and everything is working fine , there is no reason why things should have to have a multi-core CPU or more RAM unless I 'm doing something really CPU/memory intensive ( encoding , etc ) .
There is no point in me spending $ 1,000 more on a new laptop because someone is crap at coding .
And honestly , if you can fit a networked GUI onto a floppy disk in assembly , theres no reason why you ca n't make a decent program in C that runs fine on a Pentium III and 256 MB of RAM or less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because A) Most of us aren't in the disposable mindset, most of us prefer to re-use working machines B) Most of us have had programming instruction and know that a slow application is the result of crappy coding or a crappy architecture C) Most of us don't take out loans/financing on our toys.
You would be surprised the number of people who don't or can't pay cash on their computers, TVs, or other electronics and instead either put them on the credit card so the $1,000 laptop quickly becomes a $1,500 laptop.
If I have a Pentium M laptop with 1 gig of RAM and everything is working fine, there is no reason why things should have to have a multi-core CPU or more RAM unless I'm doing something really CPU/memory intensive (encoding, etc).
There is no point in me spending $1,000 more on a new laptop because someone is crap at coding.
And honestly, if you can fit a networked GUI onto a floppy disk in assembly, theres no reason why you can't make a decent program in C that runs fine on a Pentium III and 256 MB of RAM or less.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370296</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>dq5 studios</author>
	<datestamp>1260266760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No. For a lot of us, that's like asking, "Does the ability to run JavaScript put Chrome at risk of becoming bloated?"</p></div><p>I don't know, judging from some NoScript fans, they certainly think so.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
For a lot of us , that 's like asking , " Does the ability to run JavaScript put Chrome at risk of becoming bloated ?
" I do n't know , judging from some NoScript fans , they certainly think so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
For a lot of us, that's like asking, "Does the ability to run JavaScript put Chrome at risk of becoming bloated?
"I don't know, judging from some NoScript fans, they certainly think so.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30376026</id>
	<title>Re:adthwart</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259588280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>also adthwart does not remove google ads<br>only every other ads</p><p>"just lol"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>also adthwart does not remove google adsonly every other ads " just lol "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>also adthwart does not remove google adsonly every other ads"just lol"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370648</id>
	<title>Re:Take on AdBlock?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260268440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You ACTUALLY liked that mess?  Even the mess we have now is a thousand times better.</p><p>Just don't browse crap and you will be fine.  (oh wait...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ACTUALLY liked that mess ?
Even the mess we have now is a thousand times better.Just do n't browse crap and you will be fine .
( oh wait... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You ACTUALLY liked that mess?
Even the mess we have now is a thousand times better.Just don't browse crap and you will be fine.
(oh wait...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371172</id>
	<title>Re:Take on AdBlock?</title>
	<author>RobertLTux</author>
	<datestamp>1260270720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>okay lemme give you an example of why i block ads</p><p>Video streaming sites/show video sites<br>if i go to "watch full episodes now" i want to see the show in question<br>what i do not want to see is<br>1 3/4 of the screen taken up by frame "stuff"<br>2 ads should be slipped into the stream not interrupt the stream<br>3 interactive applet ads should be forbidden (and break full screen viewing)<br>4 the most important thing on the page is the show not the ads so no ad banners or taking over the [redacted] frame to display ads<br>5 give me a simple show list not some silverlight/flash/java chooser applet<br>6 the show should start/stop when i say it does</p><p>in short make your content worth paying for and i might do so</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>okay lem me give you an example of why i block adsVideo streaming sites/show video sitesif i go to " watch full episodes now " i want to see the show in questionwhat i do not want to see is1 3/4 of the screen taken up by frame " stuff " 2 ads should be slipped into the stream not interrupt the stream3 interactive applet ads should be forbidden ( and break full screen viewing ) 4 the most important thing on the page is the show not the ads so no ad banners or taking over the [ redacted ] frame to display ads5 give me a simple show list not some silverlight/flash/java chooser applet6 the show should start/stop when i say it doesin short make your content worth paying for and i might do so</tokentext>
<sentencetext>okay lemme give you an example of why i block adsVideo streaming sites/show video sitesif i go to "watch full episodes now" i want to see the show in questionwhat i do not want to see is1 3/4 of the screen taken up by frame "stuff"2 ads should be slipped into the stream not interrupt the stream3 interactive applet ads should be forbidden (and break full screen viewing)4 the most important thing on the page is the show not the ads so no ad banners or taking over the [redacted] frame to display ads5 give me a simple show list not some silverlight/flash/java chooser applet6 the show should start/stop when i say it doesin short make your content worth paying for and i might do so</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370882</id>
	<title>polipo the best blocker ever</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260269520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i use polipo as ad bloquer under linux and mac and it works realy good!<br>i invite every body to test it at last one time and you ll see the efficacity of it!</p><p>http://www.pps.jussieu.fr/~jch/software/polipo/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i use polipo as ad bloquer under linux and mac and it works realy good ! i invite every body to test it at last one time and you ll see the efficacity of it ! http : //www.pps.jussieu.fr/ ~ jch/software/polipo/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i use polipo as ad bloquer under linux and mac and it works realy good!i invite every body to test it at last one time and you ll see the efficacity of it!http://www.pps.jussieu.fr/~jch/software/polipo/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30374796</id>
	<title>Re:Take on AdBlock?</title>
	<author>martin-boundary</author>
	<datestamp>1259611440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>  The problem is that AdBlock's only mode is "always on, except on whitelisted
  sites." If it had a mode of "always off, except for blacklisted sites" then I
  think a lot more people would get behind it-- content creators and web
  surfers.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
An addon that does what you want is technically very easy to create, a
developer with experience of firefox addons could do something solid in
1-2 days.
</p><p>
If you're sure that a lot of content creators would get behind such a tool,
why don't you contact them and ask them for a donation? Then you could
pay someone to build it.
The resulting addon could compete with AdBlock etc, and the
best addon would eventually succeed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that AdBlock 's only mode is " always on , except on whitelisted sites .
" If it had a mode of " always off , except for blacklisted sites " then I think a lot more people would get behind it-- content creators and web surfers .
An addon that does what you want is technically very easy to create , a developer with experience of firefox addons could do something solid in 1-2 days .
If you 're sure that a lot of content creators would get behind such a tool , why do n't you contact them and ask them for a donation ?
Then you could pay someone to build it .
The resulting addon could compete with AdBlock etc , and the best addon would eventually succeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  The problem is that AdBlock's only mode is "always on, except on whitelisted
  sites.
" If it had a mode of "always off, except for blacklisted sites" then I
  think a lot more people would get behind it-- content creators and web
  surfers.
An addon that does what you want is technically very easy to create, a
developer with experience of firefox addons could do something solid in
1-2 days.
If you're sure that a lot of content creators would get behind such a tool,
why don't you contact them and ask them for a donation?
Then you could
pay someone to build it.
The resulting addon could compete with AdBlock etc, and the
best addon would eventually succeed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371254</id>
	<title>Re:Take on AdBlock?</title>
	<author>frogzilla</author>
	<datestamp>1260271140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You must mean marketing ecology not information ecology.  I think the information ecology is working exactly as it must.</p><p>If a non-trivial number of people start blocking ads, those who truly have something of value will have to charge for it.  What's wrong with that?  It's presumably the way things are supposed to work.</p><p>The only good thing that I can see in this internet advertising game is that for the first time in history it is easy to tell how few people actually care about ads.  I would guess that the fraction of people who respond to ads is tiny for any given site.  Maybe the problem is really with the advertising model.  Why annoy so many to benefit so few?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You must mean marketing ecology not information ecology .
I think the information ecology is working exactly as it must.If a non-trivial number of people start blocking ads , those who truly have something of value will have to charge for it .
What 's wrong with that ?
It 's presumably the way things are supposed to work.The only good thing that I can see in this internet advertising game is that for the first time in history it is easy to tell how few people actually care about ads .
I would guess that the fraction of people who respond to ads is tiny for any given site .
Maybe the problem is really with the advertising model .
Why annoy so many to benefit so few ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must mean marketing ecology not information ecology.
I think the information ecology is working exactly as it must.If a non-trivial number of people start blocking ads, those who truly have something of value will have to charge for it.
What's wrong with that?
It's presumably the way things are supposed to work.The only good thing that I can see in this internet advertising game is that for the first time in history it is easy to tell how few people actually care about ads.
I would guess that the fraction of people who respond to ads is tiny for any given site.
Maybe the problem is really with the advertising model.
Why annoy so many to benefit so few?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30376146</id>
	<title>Re:Take on AdBlock?</title>
	<author>gargll</author>
	<datestamp>1259589600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course, ads never made anything free in the first place, you are still paying but indirectly. Marketing budget for clothing, movies, games, etc. are gigantic and factored into the price. In addition, ads are displayed all around us, whether or not we care about the product.

The long term consequence of adblocking is that no one will pay for ads at which point they will simply go away. I don't have a problem with this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , ads never made anything free in the first place , you are still paying but indirectly .
Marketing budget for clothing , movies , games , etc .
are gigantic and factored into the price .
In addition , ads are displayed all around us , whether or not we care about the product .
The long term consequence of adblocking is that no one will pay for ads at which point they will simply go away .
I do n't have a problem with this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, ads never made anything free in the first place, you are still paying but indirectly.
Marketing budget for clothing, movies, games, etc.
are gigantic and factored into the price.
In addition, ads are displayed all around us, whether or not we care about the product.
The long term consequence of adblocking is that no one will pay for ads at which point they will simply go away.
I don't have a problem with this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370008</id>
	<title>Extensions security?</title>
	<author>mcrbids</author>
	<datestamp>1260265320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, extensions are great - but for one detail: Security! <b>The current extensions model is as insecure as hell</b>. All extensions have full access to the browser process - there is NOTHING that stops a rogue extension that was helpfully installed when you tried to punch the monkey and clicked "Yes" to the annoying question from watching everything you do in the browser and send any input you type into a form back to a mother ship you didn't even know existed.</p><p>I appreciate that the idea of adding a decent security model into extensions and plugins is a hard, thorny problem to solve. But that is exactly why we really, desperately need it! The browser is, for many computing environments, the "Operating System". Although I write this on a Linux laptop, the computing platform I use for development isn't Windows or Linux or MacOS, it's Firefox/Chrome! I don't personally much care what O/S the end user uses.</p><p>Because of this importance, because the browser is fast becoming the only O/S that actually matters, it's vitally important that we develop SOME kind of framework for application level security. <b>The  utter lack of a current extensions security model is just begging for disaster!</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , extensions are great - but for one detail : Security !
The current extensions model is as insecure as hell .
All extensions have full access to the browser process - there is NOTHING that stops a rogue extension that was helpfully installed when you tried to punch the monkey and clicked " Yes " to the annoying question from watching everything you do in the browser and send any input you type into a form back to a mother ship you did n't even know existed.I appreciate that the idea of adding a decent security model into extensions and plugins is a hard , thorny problem to solve .
But that is exactly why we really , desperately need it !
The browser is , for many computing environments , the " Operating System " .
Although I write this on a Linux laptop , the computing platform I use for development is n't Windows or Linux or MacOS , it 's Firefox/Chrome !
I do n't personally much care what O/S the end user uses.Because of this importance , because the browser is fast becoming the only O/S that actually matters , it 's vitally important that we develop SOME kind of framework for application level security .
The utter lack of a current extensions security model is just begging for disaster !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, extensions are great - but for one detail: Security!
The current extensions model is as insecure as hell.
All extensions have full access to the browser process - there is NOTHING that stops a rogue extension that was helpfully installed when you tried to punch the monkey and clicked "Yes" to the annoying question from watching everything you do in the browser and send any input you type into a form back to a mother ship you didn't even know existed.I appreciate that the idea of adding a decent security model into extensions and plugins is a hard, thorny problem to solve.
But that is exactly why we really, desperately need it!
The browser is, for many computing environments, the "Operating System".
Although I write this on a Linux laptop, the computing platform I use for development isn't Windows or Linux or MacOS, it's Firefox/Chrome!
I don't personally much care what O/S the end user uses.Because of this importance, because the browser is fast becoming the only O/S that actually matters, it's vitally important that we develop SOME kind of framework for application level security.
The  utter lack of a current extensions security model is just begging for disaster!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30373830</id>
	<title>Re:Take on AdBlock?</title>
	<author>rdnetto</author>
	<datestamp>1260290040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>+1 Insightful</p><p>One of my favourite things about the internet is that most things are free. Usually this is because they are supported by advertising. The main reasons people hate ads are because they disrupt viewing and consume resources. Consider whether it's really necessary to block the text and image based ads, or only the Flash based ones. Even if ABP is ported to Chrome, I will continue to use only FlashBlock.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 1 InsightfulOne of my favourite things about the internet is that most things are free .
Usually this is because they are supported by advertising .
The main reasons people hate ads are because they disrupt viewing and consume resources .
Consider whether it 's really necessary to block the text and image based ads , or only the Flash based ones .
Even if ABP is ported to Chrome , I will continue to use only FlashBlock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+1 InsightfulOne of my favourite things about the internet is that most things are free.
Usually this is because they are supported by advertising.
The main reasons people hate ads are because they disrupt viewing and consume resources.
Consider whether it's really necessary to block the text and image based ads, or only the Flash based ones.
Even if ABP is ported to Chrome, I will continue to use only FlashBlock.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370156</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260266100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because only idiots think that everyone should be running dual quadcore 4.32ghz processor with 21gb of ram.</p><p>If it cant run on the lowest end netbook, then the app is crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because only idiots think that everyone should be running dual quadcore 4.32ghz processor with 21gb of ram.If it cant run on the lowest end netbook , then the app is crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because only idiots think that everyone should be running dual quadcore 4.32ghz processor with 21gb of ram.If it cant run on the lowest end netbook, then the app is crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370834</id>
	<title>Re:Bloated.</title>
	<author>slimjim8094</author>
	<datestamp>1260269280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about the Skip button? There's only three buttons, you know. That's not too many</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about the Skip button ?
There 's only three buttons , you know .
That 's not too many</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about the Skip button?
There's only three buttons, you know.
That's not too many</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370598</id>
	<title>Extensions are good</title>
	<author>thelonious</author>
	<datestamp>1260268200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I for one have been waiting for Chrome extensions.  I think Firefox does a good job managing them.  It's always good to know how to disable/uninstall.  I don't find Firefox to be bloated.  You want bloat?  Check out my WoW addon directory!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I for one have been waiting for Chrome extensions .
I think Firefox does a good job managing them .
It 's always good to know how to disable/uninstall .
I do n't find Firefox to be bloated .
You want bloat ?
Check out my WoW addon directory !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I for one have been waiting for Chrome extensions.
I think Firefox does a good job managing them.
It's always good to know how to disable/uninstall.
I don't find Firefox to be bloated.
You want bloat?
Check out my WoW addon directory!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369602</id>
	<title>Bloated.</title>
	<author>qoncept</author>
	<datestamp>1260263160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't use any Firefox extensions and I feel like it's bloated. Extensions aren't the problem, they're the solution.

<br> <br>Firefox has slowly become more and more like what really bothered me about IE. Nothing specific -- but it's getting slower and buggier. Just like IE. It's not quick and light like it used to be. I'm ready to try Chrome on my Mac.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't use any Firefox extensions and I feel like it 's bloated .
Extensions are n't the problem , they 're the solution .
Firefox has slowly become more and more like what really bothered me about IE .
Nothing specific -- but it 's getting slower and buggier .
Just like IE .
It 's not quick and light like it used to be .
I 'm ready to try Chrome on my Mac .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't use any Firefox extensions and I feel like it's bloated.
Extensions aren't the problem, they're the solution.
Firefox has slowly become more and more like what really bothered me about IE.
Nothing specific -- but it's getting slower and buggier.
Just like IE.
It's not quick and light like it used to be.
I'm ready to try Chrome on my Mac.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30373616</id>
	<title>Re:Take on AdBlock?</title>
	<author>blahplusplus</author>
	<datestamp>1260287640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"As someone who makes his living selling content through the Internet, I want people to think several times before building a tool like AdBlock"</p><p>Adblock exists because most ads today are fucking obnoxious, pop ups flash, volume tweaking, lots of jerky motion or using girls in sexy positions to catch you gaze ANY cheap neurological trick they know to get you to look at the ad space.</p><p>I have really sensitive eyes and I really hate it when there are lots of flashing and moving ads of any type, flash ads tend to be the absolute worst.</p><p>Until ad companies and website operators stop being so obnoxious they can stuff it.  You have no right to profit, if I don't like your site because you allow obnoxious advertising you don't deserve to exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" As someone who makes his living selling content through the Internet , I want people to think several times before building a tool like AdBlock " Adblock exists because most ads today are fucking obnoxious , pop ups flash , volume tweaking , lots of jerky motion or using girls in sexy positions to catch you gaze ANY cheap neurological trick they know to get you to look at the ad space.I have really sensitive eyes and I really hate it when there are lots of flashing and moving ads of any type , flash ads tend to be the absolute worst.Until ad companies and website operators stop being so obnoxious they can stuff it .
You have no right to profit , if I do n't like your site because you allow obnoxious advertising you do n't deserve to exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"As someone who makes his living selling content through the Internet, I want people to think several times before building a tool like AdBlock"Adblock exists because most ads today are fucking obnoxious, pop ups flash, volume tweaking, lots of jerky motion or using girls in sexy positions to catch you gaze ANY cheap neurological trick they know to get you to look at the ad space.I have really sensitive eyes and I really hate it when there are lots of flashing and moving ads of any type, flash ads tend to be the absolute worst.Until ad companies and website operators stop being so obnoxious they can stuff it.
You have no right to profit, if I don't like your site because you allow obnoxious advertising you don't deserve to exist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30372742</id>
	<title>Re:Take on AdBlock?</title>
	<author>kikito</author>
	<datestamp>1260279960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry for you. But really, you can't tell the wind not to blow.</p><p>I would consider changing my business model if I were you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry for you .
But really , you ca n't tell the wind not to blow.I would consider changing my business model if I were you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry for you.
But really, you can't tell the wind not to blow.I would consider changing my business model if I were you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370098</id>
	<title>Re:Bloated.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260265800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i seriously can't wait till FF gets a new JS engine - sorry but the erata for it is horrid in how you can deal with the dom - it's almost to the point where you have to make exceptions for it as often as you do for IE</p><p>oh and the forcing you to update on start - no question just "i'm doing shit come back later" is god damn annoying</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i seriously ca n't wait till FF gets a new JS engine - sorry but the erata for it is horrid in how you can deal with the dom - it 's almost to the point where you have to make exceptions for it as often as you do for IEoh and the forcing you to update on start - no question just " i 'm doing shit come back later " is god damn annoying</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i seriously can't wait till FF gets a new JS engine - sorry but the erata for it is horrid in how you can deal with the dom - it's almost to the point where you have to make exceptions for it as often as you do for IEoh and the forcing you to update on start - no question just "i'm doing shit come back later" is god damn annoying</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370982</id>
	<title>Re:Take on AdBlock?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260269880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But isn't it funny? Your advertising is nothing but making someone pay for telling him how awesome your product is. That's why I'm against advertising. Advertising is milking the gullible and ads should be recognized as what they truly are: an offense to our intellect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But is n't it funny ?
Your advertising is nothing but making someone pay for telling him how awesome your product is .
That 's why I 'm against advertising .
Advertising is milking the gullible and ads should be recognized as what they truly are : an offense to our intellect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But isn't it funny?
Your advertising is nothing but making someone pay for telling him how awesome your product is.
That's why I'm against advertising.
Advertising is milking the gullible and ads should be recognized as what they truly are: an offense to our intellect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369874</id>
	<title>Re:SRWare Iron and firefoxs addons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260264480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know about you, but I trust more Google than some random guys on the Internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about you , but I trust more Google than some random guys on the Internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about you, but I trust more Google than some random guys on the Internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369626</id>
	<title>Re:No AdBlock? No Chrome for me.</title>
	<author>sakdoctor</author>
	<datestamp>1260263280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What sort of masochist would browse without AdBlock?<br>I would sooner go whoring without condoms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What sort of masochist would browse without AdBlock ? I would sooner go whoring without condoms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What sort of masochist would browse without AdBlock?I would sooner go whoring without condoms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370162</id>
	<title>Re:Take on AdBlock?</title>
	<author>revlayle</author>
	<datestamp>1260266160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is why i never use adblockers.  If a site has a terrible ad-display model, i simply never go to the site again (or a terrible content splitter, where a 2 page article is split among 10 pages, for example, i find that a deal breaker for a web site too).  I go to many other sites where ads are only a minor side-annoyance, if this helps a website just a wee-bit more, I am more than OK with that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why i never use adblockers .
If a site has a terrible ad-display model , i simply never go to the site again ( or a terrible content splitter , where a 2 page article is split among 10 pages , for example , i find that a deal breaker for a web site too ) .
I go to many other sites where ads are only a minor side-annoyance , if this helps a website just a wee-bit more , I am more than OK with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why i never use adblockers.
If a site has a terrible ad-display model, i simply never go to the site again (or a terrible content splitter, where a 2 page article is split among 10 pages, for example, i find that a deal breaker for a web site too).
I go to many other sites where ads are only a minor side-annoyance, if this helps a website just a wee-bit more, I am more than OK with that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370764</id>
	<title>Re:Extensions security?</title>
	<author>slimjim8094</author>
	<datestamp>1260268980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firefox extensions would be next to useless if there was sandboxing or anything like that. The entire base browser is more-or-less a large extension, at least from an architectural point of view. The idea is that extensions can and and replace arbitrary bits of the browser, because they're peers.</p><p>"Fixing" that problem would destroy Firefox.</p><p>Enough people use Firefox that, if your dire predictions were accurate, we'd see hundreds of exploits. But Firefox makes it <b>really hard</b> to install extensions from anywhere outside the SSL-secured addons.mozilla.org site.</p><p>IOW, it's not a problem</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox extensions would be next to useless if there was sandboxing or anything like that .
The entire base browser is more-or-less a large extension , at least from an architectural point of view .
The idea is that extensions can and and replace arbitrary bits of the browser , because they 're peers .
" Fixing " that problem would destroy Firefox.Enough people use Firefox that , if your dire predictions were accurate , we 'd see hundreds of exploits .
But Firefox makes it really hard to install extensions from anywhere outside the SSL-secured addons.mozilla.org site.IOW , it 's not a problem</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox extensions would be next to useless if there was sandboxing or anything like that.
The entire base browser is more-or-less a large extension, at least from an architectural point of view.
The idea is that extensions can and and replace arbitrary bits of the browser, because they're peers.
"Fixing" that problem would destroy Firefox.Enough people use Firefox that, if your dire predictions were accurate, we'd see hundreds of exploits.
But Firefox makes it really hard to install extensions from anywhere outside the SSL-secured addons.mozilla.org site.IOW, it's not a problem</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370340</id>
	<title>Re:SRWare Iron and firefoxs addons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260266940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Iron is Chrome, but without the open development process.<br>I'll consider trusting them when they deploy a public source code repository.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Iron is Chrome , but without the open development process.I 'll consider trusting them when they deploy a public source code repository .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Iron is Chrome, but without the open development process.I'll consider trusting them when they deploy a public source code repository.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370364</id>
	<title>Re:No adblock</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260267000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>xmarks plugin already available for chrome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>xmarks plugin already available for chrome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>xmarks plugin already available for chrome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371006</id>
	<title>sigh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260269940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>still no noscript in sight, wtf</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>still no noscript in sight , wtf</tokentext>
<sentencetext>still no noscript in sight, wtf</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370388</id>
	<title>Re:Take on AdBlock?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260267060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd have to say I agree with you.  I really don't care about ad's, I don't run Adblock and survive somehow.  Frankly if a site has horrible ad's I just wont visit them...  What a concept.  Why would a site change if they keep getting traffic to their site?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd have to say I agree with you .
I really do n't care about ad 's , I do n't run Adblock and survive somehow .
Frankly if a site has horrible ad 's I just wont visit them... What a concept .
Why would a site change if they keep getting traffic to their site ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd have to say I agree with you.
I really don't care about ad's, I don't run Adblock and survive somehow.
Frankly if a site has horrible ad's I just wont visit them...  What a concept.
Why would a site change if they keep getting traffic to their site?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371428</id>
	<title>Re:Take on AdBlock?</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1260271980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I will start caring about Corporate America, when Corporate America starts carting about me.</p><p>Until then. Block em, Fuck em.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I will start caring about Corporate America , when Corporate America starts carting about me.Until then .
Block em , Fuck em .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will start caring about Corporate America, when Corporate America starts carting about me.Until then.
Block em, Fuck em.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369890</id>
	<title>I wrote one.</title>
	<author>SanityInAnarchy</author>
	<datestamp>1260264600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It took about an afternoon. There are a few downsides, however:</p><p>First, it's not actually adblock. It uses jQuery queries. This means it doesn't work at all with your existing filtersets. That's fine with me, since I don't want to block all ads, only the annoying ones -- animations, flash, etc.</p><p>Second, it's really cumbersome to use. SQL storage didn't work at the time, so I used CouchDB, which means you need to run a CouchDB server on localhost. I've also been entirely too lazy to add any sort of GUI.</p><p>Finally, the filters are applied after the DOM is loaded. They're a bit unreliable in the face of javascript ads, but on slow sites, there can be a noticeable lag. However, it doesn't slow my browsing down noticeably.</p><p>If people are still curious, the source is <a href="http://github.com/masover/adquery" title="github.com">here</a> [github.com].</p><p>The point, though, is that this took me less than an afternoon -- cold, from knowing nothing about Chrome extensions, to having a functional adblocker. In other words: Calm down, people, it really isn't that hard. I'm seeing posts that say things like "if this doesn't get adblock" -- <b>it will.</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It took about an afternoon .
There are a few downsides , however : First , it 's not actually adblock .
It uses jQuery queries .
This means it does n't work at all with your existing filtersets .
That 's fine with me , since I do n't want to block all ads , only the annoying ones -- animations , flash , etc.Second , it 's really cumbersome to use .
SQL storage did n't work at the time , so I used CouchDB , which means you need to run a CouchDB server on localhost .
I 've also been entirely too lazy to add any sort of GUI.Finally , the filters are applied after the DOM is loaded .
They 're a bit unreliable in the face of javascript ads , but on slow sites , there can be a noticeable lag .
However , it does n't slow my browsing down noticeably.If people are still curious , the source is here [ github.com ] .The point , though , is that this took me less than an afternoon -- cold , from knowing nothing about Chrome extensions , to having a functional adblocker .
In other words : Calm down , people , it really is n't that hard .
I 'm seeing posts that say things like " if this does n't get adblock " -- it will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It took about an afternoon.
There are a few downsides, however:First, it's not actually adblock.
It uses jQuery queries.
This means it doesn't work at all with your existing filtersets.
That's fine with me, since I don't want to block all ads, only the annoying ones -- animations, flash, etc.Second, it's really cumbersome to use.
SQL storage didn't work at the time, so I used CouchDB, which means you need to run a CouchDB server on localhost.
I've also been entirely too lazy to add any sort of GUI.Finally, the filters are applied after the DOM is loaded.
They're a bit unreliable in the face of javascript ads, but on slow sites, there can be a noticeable lag.
However, it doesn't slow my browsing down noticeably.If people are still curious, the source is here [github.com].The point, though, is that this took me less than an afternoon -- cold, from knowing nothing about Chrome extensions, to having a functional adblocker.
In other words: Calm down, people, it really isn't that hard.
I'm seeing posts that say things like "if this doesn't get adblock" -- it will.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30373372</id>
	<title>Re:No AdBlock? No Chrome for me.</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1260285180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Every time I decide to try Chrome again, I remember why I don't -- it's all about the ads.
<p>
The thing is there <i>is</i> <a href="http://www.chromeextensions.org/appearance-functioning/adblock/" title="chromeextensions.org"> an adblock</a> [chromeextensions.org]. It supports the subscriptions that adblock plus original uses too. The problem is that the content still loads -  this filter   doesn't prevent that, it only blocks it from being displayed.  While this solves some of the problem, it also means that you're still adding to page load times, etc just as if the ads were displayed.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time I decide to try Chrome again , I remember why I do n't -- it 's all about the ads .
The thing is there is an adblock [ chromeextensions.org ] .
It supports the subscriptions that adblock plus original uses too .
The problem is that the content still loads - this filter does n't prevent that , it only blocks it from being displayed .
While this solves some of the problem , it also means that you 're still adding to page load times , etc just as if the ads were displayed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every time I decide to try Chrome again, I remember why I don't -- it's all about the ads.
The thing is there is  an adblock [chromeextensions.org].
It supports the subscriptions that adblock plus original uses too.
The problem is that the content still loads -  this filter   doesn't prevent that, it only blocks it from being displayed.
While this solves some of the problem, it also means that you're still adding to page load times, etc just as if the ads were displayed.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30372724</id>
	<title>Re:Take on AdBlock?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260279780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Before you tell me to get off your lawn, let me spell this out for you: relying exclusively on the digital equivalent of newspaper ads is a poor long-term strategy. Trying to sell content in a world where a perfect, untraceable digital copy can be made for free by anyone is a poor long-term strategy.</p><p>While you focus on the gradually-being-lost tradition of writing your textbooks, finding publishers, printing, stressing about royalties and then contemplating whether you should sue individuals or whatever big pockets you can find (as per your blog post "<br>What do I do about pirates stealing my books?" http://www.wayner.org/node/55 ), other people are moving on to more stable business models.</p><p>You need to diversify into other generatives. If you want to write, you need to use what you write to create streams of income that don't depend solely on content protection. Use it on your resume to get a high paying job. Use it to land speaking gigs. Use it to find a textbook publisher who will pay you up front, so that they, not you, end up on the wrong end of the stick. Use it to sell t-shirts, or laminated reference sheets.</p><p>If you can't stand all of those ideas, then focus on providing your information in a way that is better: more convenient, more personalized, faster. Then sell those characteristics that make it better. (Hint: Textbooks and articles aren't better anymore.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Before you tell me to get off your lawn , let me spell this out for you : relying exclusively on the digital equivalent of newspaper ads is a poor long-term strategy .
Trying to sell content in a world where a perfect , untraceable digital copy can be made for free by anyone is a poor long-term strategy.While you focus on the gradually-being-lost tradition of writing your textbooks , finding publishers , printing , stressing about royalties and then contemplating whether you should sue individuals or whatever big pockets you can find ( as per your blog post " What do I do about pirates stealing my books ?
" http : //www.wayner.org/node/55 ) , other people are moving on to more stable business models.You need to diversify into other generatives .
If you want to write , you need to use what you write to create streams of income that do n't depend solely on content protection .
Use it on your resume to get a high paying job .
Use it to land speaking gigs .
Use it to find a textbook publisher who will pay you up front , so that they , not you , end up on the wrong end of the stick .
Use it to sell t-shirts , or laminated reference sheets.If you ca n't stand all of those ideas , then focus on providing your information in a way that is better : more convenient , more personalized , faster .
Then sell those characteristics that make it better .
( Hint : Textbooks and articles are n't better anymore .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before you tell me to get off your lawn, let me spell this out for you: relying exclusively on the digital equivalent of newspaper ads is a poor long-term strategy.
Trying to sell content in a world where a perfect, untraceable digital copy can be made for free by anyone is a poor long-term strategy.While you focus on the gradually-being-lost tradition of writing your textbooks, finding publishers, printing, stressing about royalties and then contemplating whether you should sue individuals or whatever big pockets you can find (as per your blog post "What do I do about pirates stealing my books?
" http://www.wayner.org/node/55 ), other people are moving on to more stable business models.You need to diversify into other generatives.
If you want to write, you need to use what you write to create streams of income that don't depend solely on content protection.
Use it on your resume to get a high paying job.
Use it to land speaking gigs.
Use it to find a textbook publisher who will pay you up front, so that they, not you, end up on the wrong end of the stick.
Use it to sell t-shirts, or laminated reference sheets.If you can't stand all of those ideas, then focus on providing your information in a way that is better: more convenient, more personalized, faster.
Then sell those characteristics that make it better.
(Hint: Textbooks and articles aren't better anymore.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371804</id>
	<title>Re:Take on AdBlock?</title>
	<author>Scooby Snacks</author>
	<datestamp>1260274200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't personally use an ad-specific blocker, but I do use NoScript and FlashBlock.  This has the side effect of blocking the most obnoxious ads.  Otherwise, I can think of exactly one time that I've blocked images from a host due to epilepsy-inducing GIF animation.

<p>Now, it's extremely rare that I actually <i>click</i> on an ad, and I can't recall ever having purchased something after clicking an ad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't personally use an ad-specific blocker , but I do use NoScript and FlashBlock .
This has the side effect of blocking the most obnoxious ads .
Otherwise , I can think of exactly one time that I 've blocked images from a host due to epilepsy-inducing GIF animation .
Now , it 's extremely rare that I actually click on an ad , and I ca n't recall ever having purchased something after clicking an ad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't personally use an ad-specific blocker, but I do use NoScript and FlashBlock.
This has the side effect of blocking the most obnoxious ads.
Otherwise, I can think of exactly one time that I've blocked images from a host due to epilepsy-inducing GIF animation.
Now, it's extremely rare that I actually click on an ad, and I can't recall ever having purchased something after clicking an ad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369570</id>
	<title>No</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260263040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does the availability of extensions put Chrome at risk of becoming bloated, like many complain about with Firefox?</p></div><p>No. For a lot of us, that's like asking, "Does the ability to run JavaScript put Chrome at risk of becoming bloated?" or even, "Does the ability to render HTML put Chrome at risk of becoming bloated?"</p><p>Extensions are among the core featureset that a browser should support. With extensions, you simply make sure that everything is possible to accomplish with the extension API instead of implementing new features. That way, the user decides how bloated the browser becomes and doesn't have to put up with the bloat of unwanted features.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does the availability of extensions put Chrome at risk of becoming bloated , like many complain about with Firefox ? No .
For a lot of us , that 's like asking , " Does the ability to run JavaScript put Chrome at risk of becoming bloated ?
" or even , " Does the ability to render HTML put Chrome at risk of becoming bloated ?
" Extensions are among the core featureset that a browser should support .
With extensions , you simply make sure that everything is possible to accomplish with the extension API instead of implementing new features .
That way , the user decides how bloated the browser becomes and does n't have to put up with the bloat of unwanted features .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does the availability of extensions put Chrome at risk of becoming bloated, like many complain about with Firefox?No.
For a lot of us, that's like asking, "Does the ability to run JavaScript put Chrome at risk of becoming bloated?
" or even, "Does the ability to render HTML put Chrome at risk of becoming bloated?
"Extensions are among the core featureset that a browser should support.
With extensions, you simply make sure that everything is possible to accomplish with the extension API instead of implementing new features.
That way, the user decides how bloated the browser becomes and doesn't have to put up with the bloat of unwanted features.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369608</id>
	<title>adthwart</title>
	<author>GrumpyOldMan</author>
	<datestamp>1260263220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm in the process of trying out Chrome, and was looking for adblockers.  Right now, I'm using adthwart (http://qux.us/adthwart/).  It uses EasyList, just like AdBlockPlus on firefox.  So far, it seems to work nearly as well as AdBlockPlus, but is not as configurable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm in the process of trying out Chrome , and was looking for adblockers .
Right now , I 'm using adthwart ( http : //qux.us/adthwart/ ) .
It uses EasyList , just like AdBlockPlus on firefox .
So far , it seems to work nearly as well as AdBlockPlus , but is not as configurable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm in the process of trying out Chrome, and was looking for adblockers.
Right now, I'm using adthwart (http://qux.us/adthwart/).
It uses EasyList, just like AdBlockPlus on firefox.
So far, it seems to work nearly as well as AdBlockPlus, but is not as configurable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30373074</id>
	<title>Re:Take on AdBlock?</title>
	<author>sseaman</author>
	<datestamp>1260282720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If advertisers and people selling content are just along for the ride, then it should be a simple matter for you to avoid their sites - far simpler than developing software that detects and blocks advertisements.</p><p>You're not being ethical, you're being lazy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If advertisers and people selling content are just along for the ride , then it should be a simple matter for you to avoid their sites - far simpler than developing software that detects and blocks advertisements.You 're not being ethical , you 're being lazy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If advertisers and people selling content are just along for the ride, then it should be a simple matter for you to avoid their sites - far simpler than developing software that detects and blocks advertisements.You're not being ethical, you're being lazy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370792</id>
	<title>Re:Take on AdBlock?</title>
	<author>mujadaddy</author>
	<datestamp>1260269100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If the content industry can't make money from ads, we'll either go out of business or put our information behind a paywall. That may happen whether or not you create the ad block extension</p></div><p>So isn't that a self-fulfilling prophecy of doom?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Google itself depends almost entirely upon ads for their revenue.</p></div><p>Oh no! How can I donate money to help these poor people?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Please consider the long term consequences for building such a tool. The information ecology is much more fragile than you can imagine.</p></div><p>It's tough to reconcile your sort-of-low UID with your opinion that it's worth paying for information on the internet.<br> <br>I for one miss the internet being a place where the fringe element hung out.  So the BBC puts their content behind a paywall; some Grey Hat steals it, we all share it. <br> <br> Would bursting the second internet bubble <b>really</b> be that tragic?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the content industry ca n't make money from ads , we 'll either go out of business or put our information behind a paywall .
That may happen whether or not you create the ad block extensionSo is n't that a self-fulfilling prophecy of doom ? Google itself depends almost entirely upon ads for their revenue.Oh no !
How can I donate money to help these poor people ? Please consider the long term consequences for building such a tool .
The information ecology is much more fragile than you can imagine.It 's tough to reconcile your sort-of-low UID with your opinion that it 's worth paying for information on the internet .
I for one miss the internet being a place where the fringe element hung out .
So the BBC puts their content behind a paywall ; some Grey Hat steals it , we all share it .
Would bursting the second internet bubble really be that tragic ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the content industry can't make money from ads, we'll either go out of business or put our information behind a paywall.
That may happen whether or not you create the ad block extensionSo isn't that a self-fulfilling prophecy of doom?Google itself depends almost entirely upon ads for their revenue.Oh no!
How can I donate money to help these poor people?Please consider the long term consequences for building such a tool.
The information ecology is much more fragile than you can imagine.It's tough to reconcile your sort-of-low UID with your opinion that it's worth paying for information on the internet.
I for one miss the internet being a place where the fringe element hung out.
So the BBC puts their content behind a paywall; some Grey Hat steals it, we all share it.
Would bursting the second internet bubble really be that tragic?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30372848</id>
	<title>Re:Take on AdBlock?</title>
	<author>Taxman415a</author>
	<datestamp>1260280860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It looks like a  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Host\_file" title="wikipedia.org">hosts file</a> [wikipedia.org] is what you want then. If you really don't want to spend any time on it, just download the MVPS HOSTS file from <a href="http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm" title="mvps.org">http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm</a> [mvps.org] but that blocks pretty much everything. Otherwise just put the few in there that you want to block.<br> <br>

I prefer to support those sites that I like to visit since I'm not paying them. I'm not really going to pay much attention to their ads, but at least they'll make enough to cover the cost of serving the page to me. I just want block the egregious ones. Sounds like you're about the same,</htmltext>
<tokenext>It looks like a hosts file [ wikipedia.org ] is what you want then .
If you really do n't want to spend any time on it , just download the MVPS HOSTS file from http : //www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm [ mvps.org ] but that blocks pretty much everything .
Otherwise just put the few in there that you want to block .
I prefer to support those sites that I like to visit since I 'm not paying them .
I 'm not really going to pay much attention to their ads , but at least they 'll make enough to cover the cost of serving the page to me .
I just want block the egregious ones .
Sounds like you 're about the same,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It looks like a  hosts file [wikipedia.org] is what you want then.
If you really don't want to spend any time on it, just download the MVPS HOSTS file from http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm [mvps.org] but that blocks pretty much everything.
Otherwise just put the few in there that you want to block.
I prefer to support those sites that I like to visit since I'm not paying them.
I'm not really going to pay much attention to their ads, but at least they'll make enough to cover the cost of serving the page to me.
I just want block the egregious ones.
Sounds like you're about the same,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30372570</id>
	<title>Re:Take on AdBlock?</title>
	<author>jstomel</author>
	<datestamp>1260278580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Honestly I rather wish people would just put their valuable content behind a paywall.  If you think your stuff is so valuable then let's see what you can get for it on it in the open market.  There will always be plenty of free content because people <i>like</i> creating and sharing content.  They do it for free all the time.  Most bloggers are not paid to do it and do not require add support.  Ditto wikipedia.  You might consider such content inferior, I don't.  Lets find out what the market says.  Google, of course, is add supported.  However, their adds are unobtrusive and relevant.  I might also note that most addblockers do not block google adds because they are inserted directly into the html of the page google returns on a search result and not echoed from an addserver.  If everyone advertised like google does, I don't think there would be a problem.

<br> <br>So to all content providers out there who complain about addblockers.  Please, take your ball and bat and go home.  Let's see who decides to play with you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly I rather wish people would just put their valuable content behind a paywall .
If you think your stuff is so valuable then let 's see what you can get for it on it in the open market .
There will always be plenty of free content because people like creating and sharing content .
They do it for free all the time .
Most bloggers are not paid to do it and do not require add support .
Ditto wikipedia .
You might consider such content inferior , I do n't .
Lets find out what the market says .
Google , of course , is add supported .
However , their adds are unobtrusive and relevant .
I might also note that most addblockers do not block google adds because they are inserted directly into the html of the page google returns on a search result and not echoed from an addserver .
If everyone advertised like google does , I do n't think there would be a problem .
So to all content providers out there who complain about addblockers .
Please , take your ball and bat and go home .
Let 's see who decides to play with you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly I rather wish people would just put their valuable content behind a paywall.
If you think your stuff is so valuable then let's see what you can get for it on it in the open market.
There will always be plenty of free content because people like creating and sharing content.
They do it for free all the time.
Most bloggers are not paid to do it and do not require add support.
Ditto wikipedia.
You might consider such content inferior, I don't.
Lets find out what the market says.
Google, of course, is add supported.
However, their adds are unobtrusive and relevant.
I might also note that most addblockers do not block google adds because they are inserted directly into the html of the page google returns on a search result and not echoed from an addserver.
If everyone advertised like google does, I don't think there would be a problem.
So to all content providers out there who complain about addblockers.
Please, take your ball and bat and go home.
Let's see who decides to play with you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371090</id>
	<title>Re:Take on AdBlock?</title>
	<author>0xABADC0DA</author>
	<datestamp>1260270360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That may happen whether or not you create the ad block extension because ads don't generate enough money to pay for the kind of reporting that newspapers used to do</p></div><p>Of course ads generate enough money to pay for reporting.  How do you think google pays for all those data centers, "free" gmail, groups, dns, blog, 'drives' services they have?</p><p>There is plenty of online advertisement money, the problem is that google gets pretty much all of it instead of more going to the people creating the content.  Google is the SONY + EMI + Universal of the online advertisement industry... they keep all the money and the actual creative talent gets shafted.</p><p>Google has well paid employees with awesome benefits such as free food and 1 paid vacation day a week ('20\% time') and 300\% profit they spend on all sorts of money-losing projects.  Meanwhile newspapers that hire people to produce news and content are going out of business.  Do no evil, or just see no evil?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That may happen whether or not you create the ad block extension because ads do n't generate enough money to pay for the kind of reporting that newspapers used to doOf course ads generate enough money to pay for reporting .
How do you think google pays for all those data centers , " free " gmail , groups , dns , blog , 'drives ' services they have ? There is plenty of online advertisement money , the problem is that google gets pretty much all of it instead of more going to the people creating the content .
Google is the SONY + EMI + Universal of the online advertisement industry... they keep all the money and the actual creative talent gets shafted.Google has well paid employees with awesome benefits such as free food and 1 paid vacation day a week ( '20 \ % time ' ) and 300 \ % profit they spend on all sorts of money-losing projects .
Meanwhile newspapers that hire people to produce news and content are going out of business .
Do no evil , or just see no evil ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That may happen whether or not you create the ad block extension because ads don't generate enough money to pay for the kind of reporting that newspapers used to doOf course ads generate enough money to pay for reporting.
How do you think google pays for all those data centers, "free" gmail, groups, dns, blog, 'drives' services they have?There is plenty of online advertisement money, the problem is that google gets pretty much all of it instead of more going to the people creating the content.
Google is the SONY + EMI + Universal of the online advertisement industry... they keep all the money and the actual creative talent gets shafted.Google has well paid employees with awesome benefits such as free food and 1 paid vacation day a week ('20\% time') and 300\% profit they spend on all sorts of money-losing projects.
Meanwhile newspapers that hire people to produce news and content are going out of business.
Do no evil, or just see no evil?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370928</id>
	<title>Re:Take on AdBlock?</title>
	<author>slimjim8094</author>
	<datestamp>1260269640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm perfectly happy to look at ads, particularly relevant unobtrusive ads. To that end, I go out of my way to allow Google's ads - text on a howto doesn't bother me.</p><p>But without adblock, I feel like I can't even use the damn internet any more. Even Slashdot has a huge ad just below the story. I have the "disable ads" checkbox now, so that's not a problem, but all sorts of other sites have this bullshit spewed over the page. It's particularly bad when accidentally hovering over some jiggling flash ad takes up the whole fucking window, and you need to find this tiny-ass close button.</p><p>Fuck'em. Don't piss me off, don't support ad providers that piss me off, and I'd be happy to have ads.</p><p>For what it's worth, it's the same thing with TV. If I see an ad that looks interesting, I'll watch it. But most ads are actively insulting, it seems, so I skip them with my DVR. Which means I usually miss the interesting ones.</p><p>I don't live so I can spend my time watching ads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm perfectly happy to look at ads , particularly relevant unobtrusive ads .
To that end , I go out of my way to allow Google 's ads - text on a howto does n't bother me.But without adblock , I feel like I ca n't even use the damn internet any more .
Even Slashdot has a huge ad just below the story .
I have the " disable ads " checkbox now , so that 's not a problem , but all sorts of other sites have this bullshit spewed over the page .
It 's particularly bad when accidentally hovering over some jiggling flash ad takes up the whole fucking window , and you need to find this tiny-ass close button.Fuck'em .
Do n't piss me off , do n't support ad providers that piss me off , and I 'd be happy to have ads.For what it 's worth , it 's the same thing with TV .
If I see an ad that looks interesting , I 'll watch it .
But most ads are actively insulting , it seems , so I skip them with my DVR .
Which means I usually miss the interesting ones.I do n't live so I can spend my time watching ads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm perfectly happy to look at ads, particularly relevant unobtrusive ads.
To that end, I go out of my way to allow Google's ads - text on a howto doesn't bother me.But without adblock, I feel like I can't even use the damn internet any more.
Even Slashdot has a huge ad just below the story.
I have the "disable ads" checkbox now, so that's not a problem, but all sorts of other sites have this bullshit spewed over the page.
It's particularly bad when accidentally hovering over some jiggling flash ad takes up the whole fucking window, and you need to find this tiny-ass close button.Fuck'em.
Don't piss me off, don't support ad providers that piss me off, and I'd be happy to have ads.For what it's worth, it's the same thing with TV.
If I see an ad that looks interesting, I'll watch it.
But most ads are actively insulting, it seems, so I skip them with my DVR.
Which means I usually miss the interesting ones.I don't live so I can spend my time watching ads.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369694</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260263640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not just about the ability to run extensions though. The main reason javascript-heavy sites looked bad was because the previous javascript engines we're done clumsy. Thankfully there's been huge improvement there. But if the base browser requires you to install many extensions to be useful and nice to use for you, and the extension engine is done poorly, it starts to become bloated compared to other browsers that have those features built-in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not just about the ability to run extensions though .
The main reason javascript-heavy sites looked bad was because the previous javascript engines we 're done clumsy .
Thankfully there 's been huge improvement there .
But if the base browser requires you to install many extensions to be useful and nice to use for you , and the extension engine is done poorly , it starts to become bloated compared to other browsers that have those features built-in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not just about the ability to run extensions though.
The main reason javascript-heavy sites looked bad was because the previous javascript engines we're done clumsy.
Thankfully there's been huge improvement there.
But if the base browser requires you to install many extensions to be useful and nice to use for you, and the extension engine is done poorly, it starts to become bloated compared to other browsers that have those features built-in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30376142</id>
	<title>Re:Extensions security?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259589540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The current extensions model is as insecure as hell</p></div><p>Didn't know that hell had security issues...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The current extensions model is as insecure as hellDid n't know that hell had security issues.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The current extensions model is as insecure as hellDidn't know that hell had security issues...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30374242</id>
	<title>Re:No AdBlock? No Chrome for me.</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1260295320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It wasn't until I recently fired up Chrome that I realized how spoiled I've become with FF+AdBlock.</p></div></blockquote><p>

I just looked over at my IE using workmates PC and though, people actually live like that?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was n't until I recently fired up Chrome that I realized how spoiled I 've become with FF + AdBlock .
I just looked over at my IE using workmates PC and though , people actually live like that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It wasn't until I recently fired up Chrome that I realized how spoiled I've become with FF+AdBlock.
I just looked over at my IE using workmates PC and though, people actually live like that?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30376166</id>
	<title>Re:Take on AdBlock?</title>
	<author>KritonK</author>
	<datestamp>1259589840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem is that AdBlock's only mode is "always on, except on whitelisted sites." If it had a mode of "always off, except for blacklisted sites" then I think a lot more people would get behind it</p></div><p>
Actually, Adblock works exactly as you describe. It allows everything except some blacklisted sites. If you don't want to use someone else's list of blacklisted sites, simply do not subscribe to a list such as Easylist (or delete it if you have already subscribed to one) and only use your own black list. White lists are there to allow you to visit sites that have been blacklisted in one of your subscriptions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that AdBlock 's only mode is " always on , except on whitelisted sites .
" If it had a mode of " always off , except for blacklisted sites " then I think a lot more people would get behind it Actually , Adblock works exactly as you describe .
It allows everything except some blacklisted sites .
If you do n't want to use someone else 's list of blacklisted sites , simply do not subscribe to a list such as Easylist ( or delete it if you have already subscribed to one ) and only use your own black list .
White lists are there to allow you to visit sites that have been blacklisted in one of your subscriptions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that AdBlock's only mode is "always on, except on whitelisted sites.
" If it had a mode of "always off, except for blacklisted sites" then I think a lot more people would get behind it
Actually, Adblock works exactly as you describe.
It allows everything except some blacklisted sites.
If you don't want to use someone else's list of blacklisted sites, simply do not subscribe to a list such as Easylist (or delete it if you have already subscribed to one) and only use your own black list.
White lists are there to allow you to visit sites that have been blacklisted in one of your subscriptions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371270</id>
	<title>Re:Take on AdBlock?</title>
	<author>Nithendil</author>
	<datestamp>1260271200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Until I never have to deal again with another flash ad that forces me to turn down my volume as it insists on blasting me, you're just going to have to put up with the 10\% of users that don't give a shit what ads you have on your website.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Until I never have to deal again with another flash ad that forces me to turn down my volume as it insists on blasting me , you 're just going to have to put up with the 10 \ % of users that do n't give a shit what ads you have on your website .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until I never have to deal again with another flash ad that forces me to turn down my volume as it insists on blasting me, you're just going to have to put up with the 10\% of users that don't give a shit what ads you have on your website.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369532</id>
	<title>SRWare Iron and firefoxs addons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260262920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even though I'm a little bit skeptical about the bloated aspect, hopefully <a href="http://www.srware.net/en/software\_srware\_iron.php" title="srware.net" rel="nofollow">SRWare Iron</a> [srware.net] will be updated to support them soon too. Iron is Chrome but with all the things that violate your privacy removed.</p><p>Hopefully Chrome's extension system is done better than in Firefox though. It becomes incredibly clumsy, and the interface itself is already too. Been the main reason I've stayed with Opera, as it has everything build-in and works fast. But maybe Chrome becomes more useful now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even though I 'm a little bit skeptical about the bloated aspect , hopefully SRWare Iron [ srware.net ] will be updated to support them soon too .
Iron is Chrome but with all the things that violate your privacy removed.Hopefully Chrome 's extension system is done better than in Firefox though .
It becomes incredibly clumsy , and the interface itself is already too .
Been the main reason I 've stayed with Opera , as it has everything build-in and works fast .
But maybe Chrome becomes more useful now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even though I'm a little bit skeptical about the bloated aspect, hopefully SRWare Iron [srware.net] will be updated to support them soon too.
Iron is Chrome but with all the things that violate your privacy removed.Hopefully Chrome's extension system is done better than in Firefox though.
It becomes incredibly clumsy, and the interface itself is already too.
Been the main reason I've stayed with Opera, as it has everything build-in and works fast.
But maybe Chrome becomes more useful now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370868</id>
	<title>Re:Take on AdBlock?</title>
	<author>untorqued</author>
	<datestamp>1260269460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> If the content industry can't make money from ads, we'll either go out of business or put our information behind a paywall. </p></div><p>Or it will be forced to innovate and create a system that hasn't existed before, to go with technologies and distribution methods that haven't existed before. A broken business model might destroy an industry, but only in the process of creating room for a new, more relevant model to rise from its ashes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the content industry ca n't make money from ads , we 'll either go out of business or put our information behind a paywall .
Or it will be forced to innovate and create a system that has n't existed before , to go with technologies and distribution methods that have n't existed before .
A broken business model might destroy an industry , but only in the process of creating room for a new , more relevant model to rise from its ashes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If the content industry can't make money from ads, we'll either go out of business or put our information behind a paywall.
Or it will be forced to innovate and create a system that hasn't existed before, to go with technologies and distribution methods that haven't existed before.
A broken business model might destroy an industry, but only in the process of creating room for a new, more relevant model to rise from its ashes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370946</id>
	<title>Re:SRWare Iron and firefoxs addons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260269760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>iron already has a few.  <a href="chrome-plugins.info" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">here</a> [slashdot.org] . Not very good, but meh, better than nothing</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>iron already has a few .
here [ slashdot.org ] .
Not very good , but meh , better than nothing</tokentext>
<sentencetext>iron already has a few.
here [slashdot.org] .
Not very good, but meh, better than nothing</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370288</id>
	<title>Re:No AdBlock? No Chrome for me.</title>
	<author>rufus t firefly</author>
	<datestamp>1260266760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No AdBlock? I've been using the Chromium version of AdBlock Plus for a few weeks now. That chromeextensions.org site has been live for quite some time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No AdBlock ?
I 've been using the Chromium version of AdBlock Plus for a few weeks now .
That chromeextensions.org site has been live for quite some time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No AdBlock?
I've been using the Chromium version of AdBlock Plus for a few weeks now.
That chromeextensions.org site has been live for quite some time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370172</id>
	<title>Re:SRWare Iron and firefoxs addons</title>
	<author>The MAZZTer</author>
	<datestamp>1260266220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Chrome updates extensions in the background without prompts.  I was actually surprised when I realized this had happened, didn't expect it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Chrome updates extensions in the background without prompts .
I was actually surprised when I realized this had happened , did n't expect it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chrome updates extensions in the background without prompts.
I was actually surprised when I realized this had happened, didn't expect it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370038</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox bloat comes not from extensions...</title>
	<author>SanityInAnarchy</author>
	<datestamp>1260265440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that Chrome includes the "awesome bar" by default, yet manages to be far less bloated than Firefox.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that Chrome includes the " awesome bar " by default , yet manages to be far less bloated than Firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that Chrome includes the "awesome bar" by default, yet manages to be far less bloated than Firefox.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30372296</id>
	<title>Re:Take on AdBlock?</title>
	<author>wjc\_25</author>
	<datestamp>1260277140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't have any problem with using tools like AdBlock to prevent obtrusive ads from appearing on whatever random website I click through. It's easy to disable AdBlock on websites that have legitimate, inoffensive advertisements (Slashdot, for example, and webcomics, although many of the ads on those sites are customized by their site owners and thus slip through either way); I don't see why there's any problem with blocking ads on websites that have unpleasant advertisements (especially when using a computer in a public place where children seeing bad ads can be a problem). Once websites began putting borderline-pornographic ads for "dating" websites on the edges of pages they lost any right to have users support their "business model."</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't have any problem with using tools like AdBlock to prevent obtrusive ads from appearing on whatever random website I click through .
It 's easy to disable AdBlock on websites that have legitimate , inoffensive advertisements ( Slashdot , for example , and webcomics , although many of the ads on those sites are customized by their site owners and thus slip through either way ) ; I do n't see why there 's any problem with blocking ads on websites that have unpleasant advertisements ( especially when using a computer in a public place where children seeing bad ads can be a problem ) .
Once websites began putting borderline-pornographic ads for " dating " websites on the edges of pages they lost any right to have users support their " business model .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't have any problem with using tools like AdBlock to prevent obtrusive ads from appearing on whatever random website I click through.
It's easy to disable AdBlock on websites that have legitimate, inoffensive advertisements (Slashdot, for example, and webcomics, although many of the ads on those sites are customized by their site owners and thus slip through either way); I don't see why there's any problem with blocking ads on websites that have unpleasant advertisements (especially when using a computer in a public place where children seeing bad ads can be a problem).
Once websites began putting borderline-pornographic ads for "dating" websites on the edges of pages they lost any right to have users support their "business model.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369980</id>
	<title>AdThwart</title>
	<author>sjstrutt</author>
	<datestamp>1260265140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>AdThwart works fine. I've been using it all day and have yet to see an ad.

<a href="https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/cfhdojbkjhnklbpkdaibdccddilifddb" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/cfhdojbkjhnklbpkdaibdccddilifddb</a> [google.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>AdThwart works fine .
I 've been using it all day and have yet to see an ad .
https : //chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/cfhdojbkjhnklbpkdaibdccddilifddb [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AdThwart works fine.
I've been using it all day and have yet to see an ad.
https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/cfhdojbkjhnklbpkdaibdccddilifddb [google.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30379070</id>
	<title>Re:Hold on, Hold on...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259608380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What is all this talk about how Google Chrome violates your privacy? Does it send a list of everything I type and every site I go to, to Google?</p></div><p>No.  It basically sends whatever it needs to work properly.  It obviously contacts Google every time it checks for updates &ndash; just like Firefox contacts Mozilla, IE contacts MS, Opera contacts Opera, Safari contacts Apple.  It does automatic searches with your default search provider when you type in the URL bar, so it will send the data on what URLs you begin typing to your selected search provider, if any; by default this is Google.  It also retrieves SafeBrowsing lists and some other things.  See <a href="http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/privacy.html" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">here</a> [google.com].  All of these can be disabled, if you're willing to live without the relevant features (auto-update, search suggest, etc.), and that link gives instructions.  If you're paranoid, of course, you can run a packet sniffer to make sure it's not sending info that Google hasn't told you about.

</p><p>Basically, Chrome sends about as much info back home as any other browser does, but people freak out because it's Google.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is all this talk about how Google Chrome violates your privacy ?
Does it send a list of everything I type and every site I go to , to Google ? No .
It basically sends whatever it needs to work properly .
It obviously contacts Google every time it checks for updates    just like Firefox contacts Mozilla , IE contacts MS , Opera contacts Opera , Safari contacts Apple .
It does automatic searches with your default search provider when you type in the URL bar , so it will send the data on what URLs you begin typing to your selected search provider , if any ; by default this is Google .
It also retrieves SafeBrowsing lists and some other things .
See here [ google.com ] .
All of these can be disabled , if you 're willing to live without the relevant features ( auto-update , search suggest , etc .
) , and that link gives instructions .
If you 're paranoid , of course , you can run a packet sniffer to make sure it 's not sending info that Google has n't told you about .
Basically , Chrome sends about as much info back home as any other browser does , but people freak out because it 's Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is all this talk about how Google Chrome violates your privacy?
Does it send a list of everything I type and every site I go to, to Google?No.
It basically sends whatever it needs to work properly.
It obviously contacts Google every time it checks for updates – just like Firefox contacts Mozilla, IE contacts MS, Opera contacts Opera, Safari contacts Apple.
It does automatic searches with your default search provider when you type in the URL bar, so it will send the data on what URLs you begin typing to your selected search provider, if any; by default this is Google.
It also retrieves SafeBrowsing lists and some other things.
See here [google.com].
All of these can be disabled, if you're willing to live without the relevant features (auto-update, search suggest, etc.
), and that link gives instructions.
If you're paranoid, of course, you can run a packet sniffer to make sure it's not sending info that Google hasn't told you about.
Basically, Chrome sends about as much info back home as any other browser does, but people freak out because it's Google.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30382608</id>
	<title>Re:Extensions security?</title>
	<author>leiz</author>
	<datestamp>1259583540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What sources are you basing your claims of insecurity on? Have you read <a href="http://webblaze.cs.berkeley.edu/2010/secureextensions/" title="berkeley.edu">http://webblaze.cs.berkeley.edu/2010/secureextensions/</a> [berkeley.edu] ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What sources are you basing your claims of insecurity on ?
Have you read http : //webblaze.cs.berkeley.edu/2010/secureextensions/ [ berkeley.edu ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What sources are you basing your claims of insecurity on?
Have you read http://webblaze.cs.berkeley.edu/2010/secureextensions/ [berkeley.edu] ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370236</id>
	<title>Re:is there a proper chrome build for mac yet?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260266520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i am pwning you on a "hacked" osx chrome beta build with integrated update, etc you assminge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i am pwning you on a " hacked " osx chrome beta build with integrated update , etc you assminge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i am pwning you on a "hacked" osx chrome beta build with integrated update, etc you assminge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369842</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30372296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30372186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30372538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30372742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30376166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30372570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30373074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30375126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30397384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30373298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30374242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30372730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30372058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30379070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30373616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30374898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30376146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30374796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30373830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30373810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30376584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30417540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30372848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30372520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30377118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30372698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30382608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30380852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30373372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30372634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30376142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30376026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30375902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30384788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30375114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_194229_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30372724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_194229.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370416
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_194229.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30397384
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_194229.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369738
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371104
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370106
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370156
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370408
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370296
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_194229.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30373810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370364
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_194229.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370010
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_194229.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371392
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_194229.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30375114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30376584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30372186
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_194229.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30376026
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_194229.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30379070
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_194229.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370034
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_194229.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30372296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30372538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30372742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371936
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30373298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30373830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30372570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370846
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30373074
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371444
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30376166
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30374796
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30372848
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30374898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30376146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30372058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30372730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370164
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30417540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30372724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30373616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30372698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371254
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_194229.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369634
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_194229.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30372634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369626
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369952
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369752
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30373372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30374242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370420
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_194229.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371990
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_194229.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369696
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370098
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370834
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369852
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_194229.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370236
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_194229.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369720
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369704
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370576
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30375126
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371504
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370008
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370764
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30380852
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30382608
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30376142
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30371796
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370494
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30372520
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30377118
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30375902
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30369874
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30370218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_194229.30384788
</commentlist>
</conversation>
