<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_11_1443246</id>
	<title>Mozilla Starts To Follow a New Drumbeat</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1263223920000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>ChiefMonkeyGrinder writes <i>"Key, then, to the Drumbeat project is openness, specifically openness as applied to the Internet. That fits in well with the original impulses behind Mozilla and Firefox. The former was about transforming the Netscape Communicator code into an open source browser, and the latter was about defending open standards from Microsoft's attempt to lock people into Internet Explorer 6 and its proprietary approaches. Both Mozilla and Firefox have succeeded, but the <a href="http://www.computerworlduk.com/community/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=2725&amp;blogid=14&amp;pn=1">threats have now changed</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>ChiefMonkeyGrinder writes " Key , then , to the Drumbeat project is openness , specifically openness as applied to the Internet .
That fits in well with the original impulses behind Mozilla and Firefox .
The former was about transforming the Netscape Communicator code into an open source browser , and the latter was about defending open standards from Microsoft 's attempt to lock people into Internet Explorer 6 and its proprietary approaches .
Both Mozilla and Firefox have succeeded , but the threats have now changed .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ChiefMonkeyGrinder writes "Key, then, to the Drumbeat project is openness, specifically openness as applied to the Internet.
That fits in well with the original impulses behind Mozilla and Firefox.
The former was about transforming the Netscape Communicator code into an open source browser, and the latter was about defending open standards from Microsoft's attempt to lock people into Internet Explorer 6 and its proprietary approaches.
Both Mozilla and Firefox have succeeded, but the threats have now changed.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723996</id>
	<title>Re:Crunchy Goodness!</title>
	<author>morgan\_greywolf</author>
	<datestamp>1263229560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Actually, what I'd really like to see in FF is *LESS BLOAT* and some attention to memory management... I'll wait...</p></div><p>Did I hear someone say they wanted a <a href="http://elinks.or.cz/" title="elinks.or.cz" rel="nofollow">browser with less bloat</a> [elinks.or.cz]?</p><p>You're welcome.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , what I 'd really like to see in FF is * LESS BLOAT * and some attention to memory management... I 'll wait...Did I hear someone say they wanted a browser with less bloat [ elinks.or.cz ] ? You 're welcome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, what I'd really like to see in FF is *LESS BLOAT* and some attention to memory management... I'll wait...Did I hear someone say they wanted a browser with less bloat [elinks.or.cz]?You're welcome.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724382</id>
	<title>Re:Crunchy Goodness!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263231660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, the weirdest thing happened to me:<br>My Firefox always behaved well. No memory problem, no bloat, no slowness.<br>Until some weeks ago. I don&rsquo;t exactly know what changed. I know I added some extensions (e.g. &ldquo;Stylish&rdquo;). I know there was a minor version update. I know Flash got updated (the thing I still have a feeling is the real responsible one in this). (64 bit Linux here, with 64 bit Flash too)</p><p>Now I find that the browser, after having used it a bit, and closed all tabs afterwards (yes, I know about the still loaded old tabs, and I like and need that feature), it eats more and more ram. Just yesterday I found it slowing the whole system down by eating 1.2 GB of virtual memory. With over 750 MB resident.</p><p>I think I will try safe mode for a week, before I blame anything.<br>Let&rsquo;s see if the problem still persists.<br>As I have yet to see one single complaint, mentioning that it happens in safe mode too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , the weirdest thing happened to me : My Firefox always behaved well .
No memory problem , no bloat , no slowness.Until some weeks ago .
I don    t exactly know what changed .
I know I added some extensions ( e.g .
   Stylish    ) . I know there was a minor version update .
I know Flash got updated ( the thing I still have a feeling is the real responsible one in this ) .
( 64 bit Linux here , with 64 bit Flash too ) Now I find that the browser , after having used it a bit , and closed all tabs afterwards ( yes , I know about the still loaded old tabs , and I like and need that feature ) , it eats more and more ram .
Just yesterday I found it slowing the whole system down by eating 1.2 GB of virtual memory .
With over 750 MB resident.I think I will try safe mode for a week , before I blame anything.Let    s see if the problem still persists.As I have yet to see one single complaint , mentioning that it happens in safe mode too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, the weirdest thing happened to me:My Firefox always behaved well.
No memory problem, no bloat, no slowness.Until some weeks ago.
I don’t exactly know what changed.
I know I added some extensions (e.g.
“Stylish”). I know there was a minor version update.
I know Flash got updated (the thing I still have a feeling is the real responsible one in this).
(64 bit Linux here, with 64 bit Flash too)Now I find that the browser, after having used it a bit, and closed all tabs afterwards (yes, I know about the still loaded old tabs, and I like and need that feature), it eats more and more ram.
Just yesterday I found it slowing the whole system down by eating 1.2 GB of virtual memory.
With over 750 MB resident.I think I will try safe mode for a week, before I blame anything.Let’s see if the problem still persists.As I have yet to see one single complaint, mentioning that it happens in safe mode too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30727606</id>
	<title>Re:bad writing.</title>
	<author>GooberToo</author>
	<datestamp>1263200580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have, myself, reconsidered, after reading this summary, what good writing is.</p></div><p>William Shatner?! Is that you?!</p><p>OMG...OMG...OMG...OMG...OMG...OMG...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have , myself , reconsidered , after reading this summary , what good writing is.William Shatner ? !
Is that you ?
! OMG...OMG...OMG...OMG...OMG...OMG.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have, myself, reconsidered, after reading this summary, what good writing is.William Shatner?!
Is that you?
!OMG...OMG...OMG...OMG...OMG...OMG...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724140</id>
	<title>Re:Communioncator</title>
	<author>kaizendojo</author>
	<datestamp>1263230280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here, allow me to translate from English to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.: <br>
Microsoft = Evildoers, Satan's Emissary on Earth <br>
Anything made by Anyone Else : Given to us by the Angels, Perfect in every way.
<br> <br>
Seriously, it would be nice to read a single day's<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. postings where the summaries were actual news and not (horribly biased) opinion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here , allow me to translate from English to / .
: Microsoft = Evildoers , Satan 's Emissary on Earth Anything made by Anyone Else : Given to us by the Angels , Perfect in every way .
Seriously , it would be nice to read a single day 's / .
postings where the summaries were actual news and not ( horribly biased ) opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here, allow me to translate from English to /.
: 
Microsoft = Evildoers, Satan's Emissary on Earth 
Anything made by Anyone Else : Given to us by the Angels, Perfect in every way.
Seriously, it would be nice to read a single day's /.
postings where the summaries were actual news and not (horribly biased) opinion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724004</id>
	<title>Re:Drumbeat?</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1263229620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In your case, it <b>is</b> just your insanity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In your case , it is just your insanity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In your case, it is just your insanity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30729984</id>
	<title>Re:Crunchy Goodness!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263209100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>my problems started after I upgraded from flash 9 to flash 10.  before 10 I had no memory problems and no crashes.  all I run for extensions is adblock+ and the vlc plugin.  this is on windows btw, so 32bit exe on 64bit os.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>my problems started after I upgraded from flash 9 to flash 10. before 10 I had no memory problems and no crashes .
all I run for extensions is adblock + and the vlc plugin .
this is on windows btw , so 32bit exe on 64bit os .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>my problems started after I upgraded from flash 9 to flash 10.  before 10 I had no memory problems and no crashes.
all I run for extensions is adblock+ and the vlc plugin.
this is on windows btw, so 32bit exe on 64bit os.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724372</id>
	<title>Drumbeat?</title>
	<author>Megane</author>
	<datestamp>1263231660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm all fine with this as long as nobody named <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master\_(Doctor\_Who)#Mister\_Saxon" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Saxon</a> [wikipedia.org] is in charge of the project.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm all fine with this as long as nobody named Saxon [ wikipedia.org ] is in charge of the project .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm all fine with this as long as nobody named Saxon [wikipedia.org] is in charge of the project.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30725994</id>
	<title>I can live with losing gmail and facebook</title>
	<author>Fastfwd</author>
	<datestamp>1263238200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The data I care about are my photos, my word documents and the media I paid for that I only have in electronic format such as itunes songs.</p><p>All of this is on my laptop + on a disc a home + on a disk at work</p><p>It would bother me a little to lose all my historical gmail data but not the the point where I would pay to get a backup of it. I would not care at all if all my facebook data disappeared tomorrow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The data I care about are my photos , my word documents and the media I paid for that I only have in electronic format such as itunes songs.All of this is on my laptop + on a disc a home + on a disk at workIt would bother me a little to lose all my historical gmail data but not the the point where I would pay to get a backup of it .
I would not care at all if all my facebook data disappeared tomorrow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The data I care about are my photos, my word documents and the media I paid for that I only have in electronic format such as itunes songs.All of this is on my laptop + on a disc a home + on a disk at workIt would bother me a little to lose all my historical gmail data but not the the point where I would pay to get a backup of it.
I would not care at all if all my facebook data disappeared tomorrow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724190</id>
	<title>Re:I just want HTML5 to live and Flash to die.</title>
	<author>VGPowerlord</author>
	<datestamp>1263230520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google would be over there adding <a href="http://code.google.com/p/nativeclient/" title="google.com">proprietary features</a> [google.com] to Chrome/ChromeOS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google would be over there adding proprietary features [ google.com ] to Chrome/ChromeOS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google would be over there adding proprietary features [google.com] to Chrome/ChromeOS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724102</id>
	<title>Ministry of Truth</title>
	<author>Hythlodaeus</author>
	<datestamp>1263230040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firefox "was about defending open standards from Microsoft's attempt to lock people into Internet Explorer 6 and its proprietary approaches"?  Maybe in Stallman's world.</p><p>In the words of one of Firefox's creators: (http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/ben/archives/009698.html)<br>"We discussed the rot within Mozilla, which we blamed on Netscape and Mozilla's inability to assert independence. He suggested it'd be perhaps preferable to start again on the user interface, much of the code in the front end was so bloated and bad that it was better off starting from a fresh perspective.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... These browser efforts were reactions to the rot we had seen in the Mozilla application suite."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox " was about defending open standards from Microsoft 's attempt to lock people into Internet Explorer 6 and its proprietary approaches " ?
Maybe in Stallman 's world.In the words of one of Firefox 's creators : ( http : //weblogs.mozillazine.org/ben/archives/009698.html ) " We discussed the rot within Mozilla , which we blamed on Netscape and Mozilla 's inability to assert independence .
He suggested it 'd be perhaps preferable to start again on the user interface , much of the code in the front end was so bloated and bad that it was better off starting from a fresh perspective .
... These browser efforts were reactions to the rot we had seen in the Mozilla application suite .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox "was about defending open standards from Microsoft's attempt to lock people into Internet Explorer 6 and its proprietary approaches"?
Maybe in Stallman's world.In the words of one of Firefox's creators: (http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/ben/archives/009698.html)"We discussed the rot within Mozilla, which we blamed on Netscape and Mozilla's inability to assert independence.
He suggested it'd be perhaps preferable to start again on the user interface, much of the code in the front end was so bloated and bad that it was better off starting from a fresh perspective.
... These browser efforts were reactions to the rot we had seen in the Mozilla application suite.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30733840</id>
	<title>Re:Crunchy Goodness!</title>
	<author>th3rmite</author>
	<datestamp>1263236340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm with you. I don't take much stock in the amount of memory an application uses since memory has been so cheap for awhile. There really is no reason why even a notebook doesn't have at least 4GB IMHO.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm with you .
I do n't take much stock in the amount of memory an application uses since memory has been so cheap for awhile .
There really is no reason why even a notebook does n't have at least 4GB IMHO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm with you.
I don't take much stock in the amount of memory an application uses since memory has been so cheap for awhile.
There really is no reason why even a notebook doesn't have at least 4GB IMHO.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30725024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724766</id>
	<title>I'm still confused...</title>
	<author>Pojut</author>
	<datestamp>1263233160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't do web development or anything, but I do have 11 plugins running in Firefox as well as regularly reaching 15-20 open tabs at a time...and I've never had a memory issue since 3.5 was released (running on 4 GB of DDR2800 ram).  What is it that you folks are doing that causes Firefox to have such a massive memory leak still?  Are you not running the latest version?  Are you trying to use it to cure cancer?</p><p>I don't mean to sound like a douche, I'm genuinely interested...I'm just curious why so many people have this problem with similar circumstances as myself, yet I don't encounter any of these issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't do web development or anything , but I do have 11 plugins running in Firefox as well as regularly reaching 15-20 open tabs at a time...and I 've never had a memory issue since 3.5 was released ( running on 4 GB of DDR2800 ram ) .
What is it that you folks are doing that causes Firefox to have such a massive memory leak still ?
Are you not running the latest version ?
Are you trying to use it to cure cancer ? I do n't mean to sound like a douche , I 'm genuinely interested...I 'm just curious why so many people have this problem with similar circumstances as myself , yet I do n't encounter any of these issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't do web development or anything, but I do have 11 plugins running in Firefox as well as regularly reaching 15-20 open tabs at a time...and I've never had a memory issue since 3.5 was released (running on 4 GB of DDR2800 ram).
What is it that you folks are doing that causes Firefox to have such a massive memory leak still?
Are you not running the latest version?
Are you trying to use it to cure cancer?I don't mean to sound like a douche, I'm genuinely interested...I'm just curious why so many people have this problem with similar circumstances as myself, yet I don't encounter any of these issues.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724802</id>
	<title>Re:I have an idea</title>
	<author>Junior J. Junior III</author>
	<datestamp>1263233340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, it'll be a long time before Firefox is "perfect".  In reality, that will never happen.  Still, the same argument could be applied for sufficiently high values of "good enough".</p><p>In this sort of situation, I would hope that they'd start putting resources on other projects.  Endlessly polishing Firefox to keep people employed does not make economic sense.  Those developers could turn their attention to Bugzilla, or to Thunderbird, or come up with a new project.  Leave a smaller number of people behind to keep maintaining Firefox and porting it to other platforms, perhaps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , it 'll be a long time before Firefox is " perfect " .
In reality , that will never happen .
Still , the same argument could be applied for sufficiently high values of " good enough " .In this sort of situation , I would hope that they 'd start putting resources on other projects .
Endlessly polishing Firefox to keep people employed does not make economic sense .
Those developers could turn their attention to Bugzilla , or to Thunderbird , or come up with a new project .
Leave a smaller number of people behind to keep maintaining Firefox and porting it to other platforms , perhaps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, it'll be a long time before Firefox is "perfect".
In reality, that will never happen.
Still, the same argument could be applied for sufficiently high values of "good enough".In this sort of situation, I would hope that they'd start putting resources on other projects.
Endlessly polishing Firefox to keep people employed does not make economic sense.
Those developers could turn their attention to Bugzilla, or to Thunderbird, or come up with a new project.
Leave a smaller number of people behind to keep maintaining Firefox and porting it to other platforms, perhaps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723742</id>
	<title>I just want HTML5 to live and Flash to die.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263228360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really hope Mozilla can make it happen.</p><p>Where is Google in this? Why are they dragging their feet?<br>After all, without openness where would they be?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really hope Mozilla can make it happen.Where is Google in this ?
Why are they dragging their feet ? After all , without openness where would they be ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really hope Mozilla can make it happen.Where is Google in this?
Why are they dragging their feet?After all, without openness where would they be?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723878</id>
	<title>Re:Drumbeat?</title>
	<author>Torodung</author>
	<datestamp>1263228960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I could a few weeks ago, but then Rassilon fixed it for me with his magic glove.</p><p>--<br>Toro</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could a few weeks ago , but then Rassilon fixed it for me with his magic glove.--Toro</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I could a few weeks ago, but then Rassilon fixed it for me with his magic glove.--Toro</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724942</id>
	<title>Re:Drumbeat?</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1263233760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did someone misplace their diorama?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did someone misplace their diorama ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did someone misplace their diorama?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30725740</id>
	<title>Ignore the question much?</title>
	<author>danaris</author>
	<datestamp>1263236880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The question wasn't, "What should we all do once Firefox tops 50\% marketshare?"</p><p>The question was, "What should <i>Mozilla</i> do once Firefox tops 50\% marketshare?"</p><p>Your response, while it makes a reasonable argument and brings up an important cautionary point, is totally useless in light of the question that was asked.</p><p>Do you actually have any opinion on what Mozilla should do with Firefox once it reaches 50\% marketshare, or do you just like to stand on the sidelines and say, "Whoever's most popular is bad! Use one of the less popular browsers, or face CERTAIN DOOOOOM!"?</p><p>Dan Aris</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The question was n't , " What should we all do once Firefox tops 50 \ % marketshare ?
" The question was , " What should Mozilla do once Firefox tops 50 \ % marketshare ?
" Your response , while it makes a reasonable argument and brings up an important cautionary point , is totally useless in light of the question that was asked.Do you actually have any opinion on what Mozilla should do with Firefox once it reaches 50 \ % marketshare , or do you just like to stand on the sidelines and say , " Whoever 's most popular is bad !
Use one of the less popular browsers , or face CERTAIN DOOOOOM !
" ? Dan Aris</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question wasn't, "What should we all do once Firefox tops 50\% marketshare?
"The question was, "What should Mozilla do once Firefox tops 50\% marketshare?
"Your response, while it makes a reasonable argument and brings up an important cautionary point, is totally useless in light of the question that was asked.Do you actually have any opinion on what Mozilla should do with Firefox once it reaches 50\% marketshare, or do you just like to stand on the sidelines and say, "Whoever's most popular is bad!
Use one of the less popular browsers, or face CERTAIN DOOOOOM!
"?Dan Aris</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30746534</id>
	<title>Re:Crunchy Goodness!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263312600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Firefox on Linux drags along at a speed slow enough for you to think someone is intentionally sabotaging it"<br>Then you have a personal problem.<br>Of course chrome is fast, it's just a browser, period. FF has hundreds of useful additions.<br>Anyone with VC++ can build their own version of chrome in less then 5 minutes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Firefox on Linux drags along at a speed slow enough for you to think someone is intentionally sabotaging it " Then you have a personal problem.Of course chrome is fast , it 's just a browser , period .
FF has hundreds of useful additions.Anyone with VC + + can build their own version of chrome in less then 5 minutes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Firefox on Linux drags along at a speed slow enough for you to think someone is intentionally sabotaging it"Then you have a personal problem.Of course chrome is fast, it's just a browser, period.
FF has hundreds of useful additions.Anyone with VC++ can build their own version of chrome in less then 5 minutes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30725024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30725172</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1263234600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Firefox has been much better on memory management since FF3. Everyone talks about Chrome being lean and fast, and FF being this bloated piece of crap.You do realize that using current builds of both, Firefox uses less memory? The UI will likely never be quite as fast due to XUL, but Firefox's memory management is pretty dang good. They could probably take a page from how Chrome handles garbage collection with their V8 Javascript engine, but that's another story.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox has been much better on memory management since FF3 .
Everyone talks about Chrome being lean and fast , and FF being this bloated piece of crap.You do realize that using current builds of both , Firefox uses less memory ?
The UI will likely never be quite as fast due to XUL , but Firefox 's memory management is pretty dang good .
They could probably take a page from how Chrome handles garbage collection with their V8 Javascript engine , but that 's another story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox has been much better on memory management since FF3.
Everyone talks about Chrome being lean and fast, and FF being this bloated piece of crap.You do realize that using current builds of both, Firefox uses less memory?
The UI will likely never be quite as fast due to XUL, but Firefox's memory management is pretty dang good.
They could probably take a page from how Chrome handles garbage collection with their V8 Javascript engine, but that's another story.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30748666</id>
	<title>Re:Open cloud vs Facebook, Google, Twitter</title>
	<author>Alamaraminu</author>
	<datestamp>1263382380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Facebook's APIs enable applications on Facebook; Google Maps is a true programmable web  Only time will tell whether open source or cloud deployment is a better Twitter and the Micro-Messaging Revolution, OReilly Radar Report

thanks





<a href="http://www.restoringvancouver.com/" title="restoringvancouver.com" rel="nofollow">mold removal portland</a> [restoringvancouver.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook 's APIs enable applications on Facebook ; Google Maps is a true programmable web Only time will tell whether open source or cloud deployment is a better Twitter and the Micro-Messaging Revolution , OReilly Radar Report thanks mold removal portland [ restoringvancouver.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facebook's APIs enable applications on Facebook; Google Maps is a true programmable web  Only time will tell whether open source or cloud deployment is a better Twitter and the Micro-Messaging Revolution, OReilly Radar Report

thanks





mold removal portland [restoringvancouver.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723716</id>
	<title>What to do after ?</title>
	<author>i\_want\_you\_to\_throw\_</author>
	<datestamp>1263228240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>FTA:<i>That's all well and good, but it raises the question: what should Mozilla be doing *after* it conquers the browser world &ndash; that is, once it has 50\% market share?</i>
<br> <br>
Easy, people should begin to explore other alternatives like Chrome, Safari and Opera. There should ALWAYS be choices because absolute power corrupts absolutely whether it's IE or Firefox. It's naive to make simple assertions like Microsoft = bad and Mozilla = good. Any organization that gets that kind of control eventually capitalizes on it. I know the article says "The threats have changed". How about "Mozilla's motivations will change?"</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTA : That 's all well and good , but it raises the question : what should Mozilla be doing * after * it conquers the browser world    that is , once it has 50 \ % market share ?
Easy , people should begin to explore other alternatives like Chrome , Safari and Opera .
There should ALWAYS be choices because absolute power corrupts absolutely whether it 's IE or Firefox .
It 's naive to make simple assertions like Microsoft = bad and Mozilla = good .
Any organization that gets that kind of control eventually capitalizes on it .
I know the article says " The threats have changed " .
How about " Mozilla 's motivations will change ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTA:That's all well and good, but it raises the question: what should Mozilla be doing *after* it conquers the browser world – that is, once it has 50\% market share?
Easy, people should begin to explore other alternatives like Chrome, Safari and Opera.
There should ALWAYS be choices because absolute power corrupts absolutely whether it's IE or Firefox.
It's naive to make simple assertions like Microsoft = bad and Mozilla = good.
Any organization that gets that kind of control eventually capitalizes on it.
I know the article says "The threats have changed".
How about "Mozilla's motivations will change?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723770</id>
	<title>Re:bad writing.</title>
	<author>mschirmer</author>
	<datestamp>1263228480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Key, then, to writing summaries is quality sentences, specifically sentences that don't read like this one.</p></div><p>The text was pulled straight from the article. You should direct your energy at the original article writer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Key , then , to writing summaries is quality sentences , specifically sentences that do n't read like this one.The text was pulled straight from the article .
You should direct your energy at the original article writer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Key, then, to writing summaries is quality sentences, specifically sentences that don't read like this one.The text was pulled straight from the article.
You should direct your energy at the original article writer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30726170</id>
	<title>Re:I have an idea</title>
	<author>snadrus</author>
	<datestamp>1263239100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a programmer, I cannot imagine that. Why?<br> <br>
- The state-of-the-art of interpreters (like the Javascript one in FF) is changing rapidly. Ideas for improvements will come from academia.<br>
- Software, like car design (anyone?) is never final, but can always be enhanced even in non-bloat ways. Do we have the final car yet (after 100 years of trying)?<br>
- XUL is ancient and still has possibilities<br>
- Ideas come faster than code (SPDY implementation sounds good, it gives most a 50-80\% performance improvement).</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a programmer , I can not imagine that .
Why ? - The state-of-the-art of interpreters ( like the Javascript one in FF ) is changing rapidly .
Ideas for improvements will come from academia .
- Software , like car design ( anyone ?
) is never final , but can always be enhanced even in non-bloat ways .
Do we have the final car yet ( after 100 years of trying ) ?
- XUL is ancient and still has possibilities - Ideas come faster than code ( SPDY implementation sounds good , it gives most a 50-80 \ % performance improvement ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a programmer, I cannot imagine that.
Why? 
- The state-of-the-art of interpreters (like the Javascript one in FF) is changing rapidly.
Ideas for improvements will come from academia.
- Software, like car design (anyone?
) is never final, but can always be enhanced even in non-bloat ways.
Do we have the final car yet (after 100 years of trying)?
- XUL is ancient and still has possibilities
- Ideas come faster than code (SPDY implementation sounds good, it gives most a 50-80\% performance improvement).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30726214</id>
	<title>Re:Drumbeat?</title>
	<author>daveime</author>
	<datestamp>1263239280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a bunch of bastards the Time Lords turned out to be eh ? The drums, the drums, the never ending drums.</p><p>Am I the only one who had tears in my eyes when the Doctor said "I don't want to go" ? I guess it's the first time I'd realised the "human side" of the character, and the loss he feels when he regenerates. And much better work from Russell T. Davies this time, the last series ending with the Daleks and Davros seemed like a Facebook conversation on steroids.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a bunch of bastards the Time Lords turned out to be eh ?
The drums , the drums , the never ending drums.Am I the only one who had tears in my eyes when the Doctor said " I do n't want to go " ?
I guess it 's the first time I 'd realised the " human side " of the character , and the loss he feels when he regenerates .
And much better work from Russell T. Davies this time , the last series ending with the Daleks and Davros seemed like a Facebook conversation on steroids .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a bunch of bastards the Time Lords turned out to be eh ?
The drums, the drums, the never ending drums.Am I the only one who had tears in my eyes when the Doctor said "I don't want to go" ?
I guess it's the first time I'd realised the "human side" of the character, and the loss he feels when he regenerates.
And much better work from Russell T. Davies this time, the last series ending with the Daleks and Davros seemed like a Facebook conversation on steroids.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724084</id>
	<title>Re:Drumbeat?</title>
	<author>th77</author>
	<datestamp>1263229980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly what I was thinking. I hope it doesn't turn the Mozilla project into a mad super-villain, which in turn changes all other software on Earth into copies of itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly what I was thinking .
I hope it does n't turn the Mozilla project into a mad super-villain , which in turn changes all other software on Earth into copies of itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly what I was thinking.
I hope it doesn't turn the Mozilla project into a mad super-villain, which in turn changes all other software on Earth into copies of itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723774</id>
	<title>Re:bad writing.</title>
	<author>electricbern</author>
	<datestamp>1263228480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have, myself, reconsidered, after reading this summary, what good writing is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have , myself , reconsidered , after reading this summary , what good writing is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have, myself, reconsidered, after reading this summary, what good writing is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30729340</id>
	<title>Re:I just want HTML5 to live and Flash to die.</title>
	<author>R.Mo\_Robert</author>
	<datestamp>1263206700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I really hope Mozilla can make it happen.</p><p>Where is Google in this? Why are they dragging their feet?
After all, without openness where would they be?</p></div><p>It's not up to Mozilla, it's up to YouTube: if they switch from Flash to HTML5 video, the browsers and users will follow. (The question then is which codec they will choose.)</p><p>Which, of course, is another way of saying it's all up to Google.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really hope Mozilla can make it happen.Where is Google in this ?
Why are they dragging their feet ?
After all , without openness where would they be ? It 's not up to Mozilla , it 's up to YouTube : if they switch from Flash to HTML5 video , the browsers and users will follow .
( The question then is which codec they will choose .
) Which , of course , is another way of saying it 's all up to Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really hope Mozilla can make it happen.Where is Google in this?
Why are they dragging their feet?
After all, without openness where would they be?It's not up to Mozilla, it's up to YouTube: if they switch from Flash to HTML5 video, the browsers and users will follow.
(The question then is which codec they will choose.
)Which, of course, is another way of saying it's all up to Google.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724610</id>
	<title>Re:Open cloud vs Facebook, Google, Twitter</title>
	<author>awol</author>
	<datestamp>1263232560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You raise \_the\_ fascinating question. I am intrigued by the balance between my privacy, independence and the robustness and accessibility (web apps) of the cloud framework.</p><p>I love google services, I trust Google to store my data and be there tomorrow. I trust them to be less evil than my needs demand for the services that I use. I use encryption for stuff that is sensitive and mostly (if not completely) I don't particularly care about whether they have access to my data because under the current terms of service (and given that it is all so free it is interesting to test if there is any enforceability of these "agreements") doing something dodgy with it would be a wrong yada, yada, yada.</p><p>I could establish these services myself on my servers at home, but I consider the Google infrastructure an outsourcing arrangement that provides a resilience I could not as easily provide myself.</p><p>Have I lost control? Well, yes and no. My sensitive data I maintain locally and backup and it is a pain. My email, I leave with gmail. That balance is about right for me. If they went malicious on me and took it all away I would be inconvenienced (and mighty annoyed) but life would go on. Given that I am happy with the intangible price I pay, the next question for me is how much money would I pay for the services that I use. Thankfully I don't have to answer that question yet, but FWIW it aint zero.</p><p>Cloud vendor out of business is a great scenario. It is a part of the risk assessment you just have to do with this stuff. I think reexamining the POP USENET examples you give provides a worthwhile excercise, those services were provided by institutions that then passed them on to you, your university (well mine at least) your workplace. But the amount of privacy you had there was equally small and as employers moved to provide these services you had the same set of problems if you moved employers.</p><p>So.... I think we have always had this problem. We now have many many times the data and the amenity from these service providers and so we have a few new problems but the fundamental question remains. I don't see a better solution than a market place of reliable providers between whom I can transfer  my requirements. The one thing I do see as needing to improve is the ability to have these services built on open standards to make the services more transferrable between providers. That however is perhaps the killer question and perhaps even the develoment for which we really should be pushing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You raise \ _the \ _ fascinating question .
I am intrigued by the balance between my privacy , independence and the robustness and accessibility ( web apps ) of the cloud framework.I love google services , I trust Google to store my data and be there tomorrow .
I trust them to be less evil than my needs demand for the services that I use .
I use encryption for stuff that is sensitive and mostly ( if not completely ) I do n't particularly care about whether they have access to my data because under the current terms of service ( and given that it is all so free it is interesting to test if there is any enforceability of these " agreements " ) doing something dodgy with it would be a wrong yada , yada , yada.I could establish these services myself on my servers at home , but I consider the Google infrastructure an outsourcing arrangement that provides a resilience I could not as easily provide myself.Have I lost control ?
Well , yes and no .
My sensitive data I maintain locally and backup and it is a pain .
My email , I leave with gmail .
That balance is about right for me .
If they went malicious on me and took it all away I would be inconvenienced ( and mighty annoyed ) but life would go on .
Given that I am happy with the intangible price I pay , the next question for me is how much money would I pay for the services that I use .
Thankfully I do n't have to answer that question yet , but FWIW it aint zero.Cloud vendor out of business is a great scenario .
It is a part of the risk assessment you just have to do with this stuff .
I think reexamining the POP USENET examples you give provides a worthwhile excercise , those services were provided by institutions that then passed them on to you , your university ( well mine at least ) your workplace .
But the amount of privacy you had there was equally small and as employers moved to provide these services you had the same set of problems if you moved employers.So.... I think we have always had this problem .
We now have many many times the data and the amenity from these service providers and so we have a few new problems but the fundamental question remains .
I do n't see a better solution than a market place of reliable providers between whom I can transfer my requirements .
The one thing I do see as needing to improve is the ability to have these services built on open standards to make the services more transferrable between providers .
That however is perhaps the killer question and perhaps even the develoment for which we really should be pushing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You raise \_the\_ fascinating question.
I am intrigued by the balance between my privacy, independence and the robustness and accessibility (web apps) of the cloud framework.I love google services, I trust Google to store my data and be there tomorrow.
I trust them to be less evil than my needs demand for the services that I use.
I use encryption for stuff that is sensitive and mostly (if not completely) I don't particularly care about whether they have access to my data because under the current terms of service (and given that it is all so free it is interesting to test if there is any enforceability of these "agreements") doing something dodgy with it would be a wrong yada, yada, yada.I could establish these services myself on my servers at home, but I consider the Google infrastructure an outsourcing arrangement that provides a resilience I could not as easily provide myself.Have I lost control?
Well, yes and no.
My sensitive data I maintain locally and backup and it is a pain.
My email, I leave with gmail.
That balance is about right for me.
If they went malicious on me and took it all away I would be inconvenienced (and mighty annoyed) but life would go on.
Given that I am happy with the intangible price I pay, the next question for me is how much money would I pay for the services that I use.
Thankfully I don't have to answer that question yet, but FWIW it aint zero.Cloud vendor out of business is a great scenario.
It is a part of the risk assessment you just have to do with this stuff.
I think reexamining the POP USENET examples you give provides a worthwhile excercise, those services were provided by institutions that then passed them on to you, your university (well mine at least) your workplace.
But the amount of privacy you had there was equally small and as employers moved to provide these services you had the same set of problems if you moved employers.So.... I think we have always had this problem.
We now have many many times the data and the amenity from these service providers and so we have a few new problems but the fundamental question remains.
I don't see a better solution than a market place of reliable providers between whom I can transfer  my requirements.
The one thing I do see as needing to improve is the ability to have these services built on open standards to make the services more transferrable between providers.
That however is perhaps the killer question and perhaps even the develoment for which we really should be pushing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724428</id>
	<title>Re:bad writing.</title>
	<author>bickle</author>
	<datestamp>1263231840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It reads like a Babelfish translation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It reads like a Babelfish translation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It reads like a Babelfish translation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723686</id>
	<title>bad writing.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263228120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Key, then, to writing summaries is quality sentences, specifically sentences that don't read like this one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Key , then , to writing summaries is quality sentences , specifically sentences that do n't read like this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Key, then, to writing summaries is quality sentences, specifically sentences that don't read like this one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30726344</id>
	<title>What kind of post is this?</title>
	<author>reed</author>
	<datestamp>1263239760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Want to give a clue as to what "Drumbeat" is, and maybe some kind of link that looks like it might explain what you're talking about?  (A Computerworld article about "the threats have changed" doesn't help.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Want to give a clue as to what " Drumbeat " is , and maybe some kind of link that looks like it might explain what you 're talking about ?
( A Computerworld article about " the threats have changed " does n't help .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Want to give a clue as to what "Drumbeat" is, and maybe some kind of link that looks like it might explain what you're talking about?
(A Computerworld article about "the threats have changed" doesn't help.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30725054</id>
	<title>Re:Open cloud vs Facebook, Google, Twitter</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1263234180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What happens when your cloud vendor goes out of business?</i><br>Well it depends on how stupid you are...</p><p>Cloud computing isn't a flawed concept there are just flawed implementations of it.  A lot of SaaS companies offer ways for you to download you data if you want/need it. Facebook and Twiiter are not really good examples because in reality their stuff isn't really that vital... Heck you would probably be better off if it was wiped out.  Next this is something slash dotters don't seem to realize when a company of any decent sized goes out of business there are other companies who often come in and pick up the service and the data.  If Google went out of business Microsoft or Yahoo would probably jump at the chance to buy gmail and its user base and keep and migrate all that data to hotmail probably in a few month in the meantime they would run gmail as is.  If you go with a tiny vender (A Mistake on your part), Don't make a contract where you can get full access to your data (A mistake on your part) and the companies goes out of business your are screwed... However that was due to your stupidity for going with a bad company with a bad plan.  For the most part in real life you can setup as part of the contract access and ownership of your data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What happens when your cloud vendor goes out of business ? Well it depends on how stupid you are...Cloud computing is n't a flawed concept there are just flawed implementations of it .
A lot of SaaS companies offer ways for you to download you data if you want/need it .
Facebook and Twiiter are not really good examples because in reality their stuff is n't really that vital... Heck you would probably be better off if it was wiped out .
Next this is something slash dotters do n't seem to realize when a company of any decent sized goes out of business there are other companies who often come in and pick up the service and the data .
If Google went out of business Microsoft or Yahoo would probably jump at the chance to buy gmail and its user base and keep and migrate all that data to hotmail probably in a few month in the meantime they would run gmail as is .
If you go with a tiny vender ( A Mistake on your part ) , Do n't make a contract where you can get full access to your data ( A mistake on your part ) and the companies goes out of business your are screwed... However that was due to your stupidity for going with a bad company with a bad plan .
For the most part in real life you can setup as part of the contract access and ownership of your data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happens when your cloud vendor goes out of business?Well it depends on how stupid you are...Cloud computing isn't a flawed concept there are just flawed implementations of it.
A lot of SaaS companies offer ways for you to download you data if you want/need it.
Facebook and Twiiter are not really good examples because in reality their stuff isn't really that vital... Heck you would probably be better off if it was wiped out.
Next this is something slash dotters don't seem to realize when a company of any decent sized goes out of business there are other companies who often come in and pick up the service and the data.
If Google went out of business Microsoft or Yahoo would probably jump at the chance to buy gmail and its user base and keep and migrate all that data to hotmail probably in a few month in the meantime they would run gmail as is.
If you go with a tiny vender (A Mistake on your part), Don't make a contract where you can get full access to your data (A mistake on your part) and the companies goes out of business your are screwed... However that was due to your stupidity for going with a bad company with a bad plan.
For the most part in real life you can setup as part of the contract access and ownership of your data.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30725762</id>
	<title>Re:Crunchy Goodness!</title>
	<author>thejynxed</author>
	<datestamp>1263236940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I am finding that the "horrible" 2.x versions of Firefox consume less memory overall on my system than the 3.5.x series, and this is with the exact same three add-ons installed.</p><p>The real issue in my case seems to be Flash. I am on a 64-bit system. Firefox is 32-Bit, and 64-Bit Flash is nothing but so much vaporware. I don't count the 64-Bit Alpha for Linux/BSD. There's been no improvement or new releases on it since. It's been about 4 years now since 64-bit Vista was available for testing, and 64-bit Linux/BSD has been around for far longer.</p><p>What's the freaking hold-up. They've had at least 5 years since WinXP 64-Bit at the very least to get a 64-Bit Flash binary out for Windows, and far longer for Linux/BSD.</p><p>As I sit here, with one Youtube tab open, and this tab open, Firefox 3.5.7 (firefox.exe) has the following stats (NoScript, Customize Google, AdBlock+, Flash Plugin, latest versions):</p><p>31 Threads<br>1,146,760 Page Faults<br>1,036,543K Private Bytes<br>1,599,168K Virtual Size<br>1,057,548K Working Set<br>1,017,292K WS Private<br>17,308K WS Shared<br>123 User Objects<br>845 GDI Objects</p><p>There is something very, very wrong with this picture.</p><p>Just as an aside: All of my crash reports for Firefox have somehow involved the Flash plugin, as contained in the reports found via about:crash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I am finding that the " horrible " 2.x versions of Firefox consume less memory overall on my system than the 3.5.x series , and this is with the exact same three add-ons installed.The real issue in my case seems to be Flash .
I am on a 64-bit system .
Firefox is 32-Bit , and 64-Bit Flash is nothing but so much vaporware .
I do n't count the 64-Bit Alpha for Linux/BSD .
There 's been no improvement or new releases on it since .
It 's been about 4 years now since 64-bit Vista was available for testing , and 64-bit Linux/BSD has been around for far longer.What 's the freaking hold-up .
They 've had at least 5 years since WinXP 64-Bit at the very least to get a 64-Bit Flash binary out for Windows , and far longer for Linux/BSD.As I sit here , with one Youtube tab open , and this tab open , Firefox 3.5.7 ( firefox.exe ) has the following stats ( NoScript , Customize Google , AdBlock + , Flash Plugin , latest versions ) : 31 Threads1,146,760 Page Faults1,036,543K Private Bytes1,599,168K Virtual Size1,057,548K Working Set1,017,292K WS Private17,308K WS Shared123 User Objects845 GDI ObjectsThere is something very , very wrong with this picture.Just as an aside : All of my crash reports for Firefox have somehow involved the Flash plugin , as contained in the reports found via about : crash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I am finding that the "horrible" 2.x versions of Firefox consume less memory overall on my system than the 3.5.x series, and this is with the exact same three add-ons installed.The real issue in my case seems to be Flash.
I am on a 64-bit system.
Firefox is 32-Bit, and 64-Bit Flash is nothing but so much vaporware.
I don't count the 64-Bit Alpha for Linux/BSD.
There's been no improvement or new releases on it since.
It's been about 4 years now since 64-bit Vista was available for testing, and 64-bit Linux/BSD has been around for far longer.What's the freaking hold-up.
They've had at least 5 years since WinXP 64-Bit at the very least to get a 64-Bit Flash binary out for Windows, and far longer for Linux/BSD.As I sit here, with one Youtube tab open, and this tab open, Firefox 3.5.7 (firefox.exe) has the following stats (NoScript, Customize Google, AdBlock+, Flash Plugin, latest versions):31 Threads1,146,760 Page Faults1,036,543K Private Bytes1,599,168K Virtual Size1,057,548K Working Set1,017,292K WS Private17,308K WS Shared123 User Objects845 GDI ObjectsThere is something very, very wrong with this picture.Just as an aside: All of my crash reports for Firefox have somehow involved the Flash plugin, as contained in the reports found via about:crash.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30725194</id>
	<title>Re:bad writing.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263234660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Writing are hards!</p></div><p>&lt;homer&gt;Oooh. He card read good!&lt;/homer&gt;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Writing are hards ! Oooh .
He card read good !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Writing are hards!Oooh.
He card read good!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723910</id>
	<title>Hold on one second...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263229080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>That's fits in well with the original impulses behind Mozilla and Firefox. The former was about transforming the Netscape Communincator code into an open source browser, and the latter was about defending open standards from Microsoft's attempt to lock people into Internet Explorer 6 and its proprietary approaches</p></div></blockquote><p>I thought Firefox was about Mozilla being bloated and slow, and nothing to do with IE or Microsoft at all?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's fits in well with the original impulses behind Mozilla and Firefox .
The former was about transforming the Netscape Communincator code into an open source browser , and the latter was about defending open standards from Microsoft 's attempt to lock people into Internet Explorer 6 and its proprietary approachesI thought Firefox was about Mozilla being bloated and slow , and nothing to do with IE or Microsoft at all ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's fits in well with the original impulses behind Mozilla and Firefox.
The former was about transforming the Netscape Communincator code into an open source browser, and the latter was about defending open standards from Microsoft's attempt to lock people into Internet Explorer 6 and its proprietary approachesI thought Firefox was about Mozilla being bloated and slow, and nothing to do with IE or Microsoft at all?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30725320</id>
	<title>Firefox Settings win32 vs linux Re:I have an idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263235140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>PS In any case, the Linux version of Firefox could use some attention devs!</p></div><p>Why are 'settings' stored under Tools-&gt;Options in FF:win32 but under Edit-&gt;Preferences in FF:*nix? I'm endlessly going to the wrong menu spot.</p><p>Yes I know I can do it all from about:config, but why are the menu bars different?</p><p>As a personal problem: It's even worse when I start launching sessions under X over ssh and have trouble keeping track of which FF I'm looking at. Yes I know I should just use one on all boxes, but due to my employer's preferences, that's not an option. I'm also unwilling to store my bookmarks in the cloud (although oddly, that's where I keep my personal email).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>PS In any case , the Linux version of Firefox could use some attention devs ! Why are 'settings ' stored under Tools- &gt; Options in FF : win32 but under Edit- &gt; Preferences in FF : * nix ?
I 'm endlessly going to the wrong menu spot.Yes I know I can do it all from about : config , but why are the menu bars different ? As a personal problem : It 's even worse when I start launching sessions under X over ssh and have trouble keeping track of which FF I 'm looking at .
Yes I know I should just use one on all boxes , but due to my employer 's preferences , that 's not an option .
I 'm also unwilling to store my bookmarks in the cloud ( although oddly , that 's where I keep my personal email ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PS In any case, the Linux version of Firefox could use some attention devs!Why are 'settings' stored under Tools-&gt;Options in FF:win32 but under Edit-&gt;Preferences in FF:*nix?
I'm endlessly going to the wrong menu spot.Yes I know I can do it all from about:config, but why are the menu bars different?As a personal problem: It's even worse when I start launching sessions under X over ssh and have trouble keeping track of which FF I'm looking at.
Yes I know I should just use one on all boxes, but due to my employer's preferences, that's not an option.
I'm also unwilling to store my bookmarks in the cloud (although oddly, that's where I keep my personal email).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724160</id>
	<title>Re:bad writing.</title>
	<author>Sir\_Lewk</author>
	<datestamp>1263230400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't it the editor's job to <i>not</i> copy text directly from the article if it is so terrible?  Come to think of it, why do we still grace these clowns with the title "editor" at all?  They seem rather resitant to actual editing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't it the editor 's job to not copy text directly from the article if it is so terrible ?
Come to think of it , why do we still grace these clowns with the title " editor " at all ?
They seem rather resitant to actual editing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't it the editor's job to not copy text directly from the article if it is so terrible?
Come to think of it, why do we still grace these clowns with the title "editor" at all?
They seem rather resitant to actual editing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724206</id>
	<title>Re:I have an idea</title>
	<author>cronco</author>
	<datestamp>1263230640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I completely agree with the last point. I am often amazed at the difference in experience in using FF on the same PC on Windows and then on Ubuntu. It really doesn't feel like the same browser, ie it lags even on a brand new PC on Ubuntu.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I completely agree with the last point .
I am often amazed at the difference in experience in using FF on the same PC on Windows and then on Ubuntu .
It really does n't feel like the same browser , ie it lags even on a brand new PC on Ubuntu .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I completely agree with the last point.
I am often amazed at the difference in experience in using FF on the same PC on Windows and then on Ubuntu.
It really doesn't feel like the same browser, ie it lags even on a brand new PC on Ubuntu.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30733788</id>
	<title>Re:Communioncator</title>
	<author>th3rmite</author>
	<datestamp>1263235860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Damn this comment makes me feel way too old.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn this comment makes me feel way too old .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn this comment makes me feel way too old.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30732180</id>
	<title>Re:Crunchy Goodness!</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1263221640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; &gt; The UI will likely never be quite as fast due to XUL,<br>&gt; Therein lies the problem.<br><br>So go use Chrome.  Or Lynx.<br><br>As for me, I like XUL.  The kinds of extensions it makes possible supply a number of pretty major features, some of which I don't want to be without.  I don't care if it makes certain things 20\% slower.  It still saves me time, overall, because it improves usability and workflows.<br><br>I don't care if the next version of Chrome loads every page in Planck time, I still don't want to use a browser that doesn't have Nuke Anything and Flash Block and Web Developer and Image Zoom and Rikaichan and so on.<br><br>Heck, bookmark keywords alone (a feature built into Gecko since the nineties) save me *WAY* more time than I lose to slow performance even when using SeaMonkey (which performs significantly worse than Firefox).<br><br>Real-world usability is more important than a technical performance advantage.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; The UI will likely never be quite as fast due to XUL , &gt; Therein lies the problem.So go use Chrome .
Or Lynx.As for me , I like XUL .
The kinds of extensions it makes possible supply a number of pretty major features , some of which I do n't want to be without .
I do n't care if it makes certain things 20 \ % slower .
It still saves me time , overall , because it improves usability and workflows.I do n't care if the next version of Chrome loads every page in Planck time , I still do n't want to use a browser that does n't have Nuke Anything and Flash Block and Web Developer and Image Zoom and Rikaichan and so on.Heck , bookmark keywords alone ( a feature built into Gecko since the nineties ) save me * WAY * more time than I lose to slow performance even when using SeaMonkey ( which performs significantly worse than Firefox ) .Real-world usability is more important than a technical performance advantage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; &gt; The UI will likely never be quite as fast due to XUL,&gt; Therein lies the problem.So go use Chrome.
Or Lynx.As for me, I like XUL.
The kinds of extensions it makes possible supply a number of pretty major features, some of which I don't want to be without.
I don't care if it makes certain things 20\% slower.
It still saves me time, overall, because it improves usability and workflows.I don't care if the next version of Chrome loads every page in Planck time, I still don't want to use a browser that doesn't have Nuke Anything and Flash Block and Web Developer and Image Zoom and Rikaichan and so on.Heck, bookmark keywords alone (a feature built into Gecko since the nineties) save me *WAY* more time than I lose to slow performance even when using SeaMonkey (which performs significantly worse than Firefox).Real-world usability is more important than a technical performance advantage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30725024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724422</id>
	<title>Re:I just want HTML5 to live and Flash to die.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263231780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well don't install flash then.</p><p>Have a nice hot steaming cup of Java instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well do n't install flash then.Have a nice hot steaming cup of Java instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well don't install flash then.Have a nice hot steaming cup of Java instead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30735568</id>
	<title>Re:I have an idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263302220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The UI is quite obviously slower than on Windows. You'd have to be very biased not to see that. Scrolling, general mousing around, everywhere. I attribute it to the use of GTK2, so I guess there's not much that can be done about it.</p><p>Another issue is that I often can't tab back to the address bar to give it focus. Something else takes the focus and none of the shortcuts work. Have to click to refocus. Maybe that happens on Windows too.</p><p>Firefox is great (mainly because of extensions) but the UI is pretty awful in a general sense, and it shows on Linux more than the other platforms. *shrug*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The UI is quite obviously slower than on Windows .
You 'd have to be very biased not to see that .
Scrolling , general mousing around , everywhere .
I attribute it to the use of GTK2 , so I guess there 's not much that can be done about it.Another issue is that I often ca n't tab back to the address bar to give it focus .
Something else takes the focus and none of the shortcuts work .
Have to click to refocus .
Maybe that happens on Windows too.Firefox is great ( mainly because of extensions ) but the UI is pretty awful in a general sense , and it shows on Linux more than the other platforms .
* shrug *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The UI is quite obviously slower than on Windows.
You'd have to be very biased not to see that.
Scrolling, general mousing around, everywhere.
I attribute it to the use of GTK2, so I guess there's not much that can be done about it.Another issue is that I often can't tab back to the address bar to give it focus.
Something else takes the focus and none of the shortcuts work.
Have to click to refocus.
Maybe that happens on Windows too.Firefox is great (mainly because of extensions) but the UI is pretty awful in a general sense, and it shows on Linux more than the other platforms.
*shrug*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30725730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724510</id>
	<title>Re:I have an idea</title>
	<author>Sloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1263232080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Imagine if Firefox was perfect and the web environment was stable: in other words there was no need to change it anymore until the environment changed.</p></div></blockquote><p>I can imagine that.  And that vision is extremely different than the world most people live in.  Here are two examples:</p><p>Many parts of the web (e.g. youtube) require plugins, such as flash.</p><p>Many parts of the web (e.g. gmail) provide single-vendor services that people used to be able to take for granted would remain under their own control (e.g. imap server running on my own box).</p><p>I'm skeptical that Mozilla can fix these problems (it's ultimately up to <em>users</em> to choose to not lock themselves into proprietary dependencies) but if they think they can do anything about it, they might as well try.</p><p>As long as people need Flash, there's a damn good reason for browser makers to try to increase the attractiveness of HTML5.  As long as people choose to use webmail, there's a damn good reason for software developers to try to improve email clients to try to bring 'em back to mastery of their own email.  And so on.  There's certainly a shitload of opportunity for things to get better, so if someone wants to try, I'm not necessarily going to accuse them of bloat or change for the sake of change.  The 'net is very fucked up right now and needs help.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine if Firefox was perfect and the web environment was stable : in other words there was no need to change it anymore until the environment changed.I can imagine that .
And that vision is extremely different than the world most people live in .
Here are two examples : Many parts of the web ( e.g .
youtube ) require plugins , such as flash.Many parts of the web ( e.g .
gmail ) provide single-vendor services that people used to be able to take for granted would remain under their own control ( e.g .
imap server running on my own box ) .I 'm skeptical that Mozilla can fix these problems ( it 's ultimately up to users to choose to not lock themselves into proprietary dependencies ) but if they think they can do anything about it , they might as well try.As long as people need Flash , there 's a damn good reason for browser makers to try to increase the attractiveness of HTML5 .
As long as people choose to use webmail , there 's a damn good reason for software developers to try to improve email clients to try to bring 'em back to mastery of their own email .
And so on .
There 's certainly a shitload of opportunity for things to get better , so if someone wants to try , I 'm not necessarily going to accuse them of bloat or change for the sake of change .
The 'net is very fucked up right now and needs help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine if Firefox was perfect and the web environment was stable: in other words there was no need to change it anymore until the environment changed.I can imagine that.
And that vision is extremely different than the world most people live in.
Here are two examples:Many parts of the web (e.g.
youtube) require plugins, such as flash.Many parts of the web (e.g.
gmail) provide single-vendor services that people used to be able to take for granted would remain under their own control (e.g.
imap server running on my own box).I'm skeptical that Mozilla can fix these problems (it's ultimately up to users to choose to not lock themselves into proprietary dependencies) but if they think they can do anything about it, they might as well try.As long as people need Flash, there's a damn good reason for browser makers to try to increase the attractiveness of HTML5.
As long as people choose to use webmail, there's a damn good reason for software developers to try to improve email clients to try to bring 'em back to mastery of their own email.
And so on.
There's certainly a shitload of opportunity for things to get better, so if someone wants to try, I'm not necessarily going to accuse them of bloat or change for the sake of change.
The 'net is very fucked up right now and needs help.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723704</id>
	<title>Communioncator</title>
	<author>roman\_mir</author>
	<datestamp>1263228180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know what this 'Drumbeat' project is and also I am not sure what is Communincator exactly so obviously I must provide an opinion on this 'story'.</p><p>Really, whatever is written in the summary, I don't understand what they are talking about, can anyone translate into normal speak for the ununinitiateted?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know what this 'Drumbeat ' project is and also I am not sure what is Communincator exactly so obviously I must provide an opinion on this 'story'.Really , whatever is written in the summary , I do n't understand what they are talking about , can anyone translate into normal speak for the ununinitiateted ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know what this 'Drumbeat' project is and also I am not sure what is Communincator exactly so obviously I must provide an opinion on this 'story'.Really, whatever is written in the summary, I don't understand what they are talking about, can anyone translate into normal speak for the ununinitiateted?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723726</id>
	<title>Too bad</title>
	<author>Dyinobal</author>
	<datestamp>1263228300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They are still off step.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are still off step .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are still off step.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30728600</id>
	<title>Re:Crunchy Goodness!</title>
	<author>MBGMorden</author>
	<datestamp>1263204060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My Linux box is an AMD Athlon x2 2.3Ghz with 4GB of RAM and an Nvidia 9600GT graphics card.  Hardly a "throwaway computer".  I also have a MythTV box that I've used as a Linux desktop in the past running a Celeron 2.6Ghz 2GB of RAM and an Nvidia 7300GT.  Also not too shabby.</p><p>The Windows machine has a tad faster processor (a Phenom 2.5ghz), but other than that has the same amount of RAM and same video card. I've dual-booted Linux on that machine with no improvement compared to my dedicated Linux desktop.</p><p>My brother on the other hand uses an old computer I gave to him years ago.  AMD Athlon 1.2Ghz with 1GB of RAM and integrated graphics.  Windows XP.  Firefox is snappier on his machine than on either of those two machines above.</p><p>And before you claim "setup wrong" - this has been an observation made on Ubuntu, Mint, Fedora, Gentoo, and ArchLinux.  I've been using Linux for almsot 12 years now and no, it's not running the VESA driver or anything.  The reality is Firefox on Linux is slower - much slower - than Firefox on other platforms.  Maybe not in page rendering speed, but in sheer responsiveness of the UI.  Particularly opening new tabs and closing old ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My Linux box is an AMD Athlon x2 2.3Ghz with 4GB of RAM and an Nvidia 9600GT graphics card .
Hardly a " throwaway computer " .
I also have a MythTV box that I 've used as a Linux desktop in the past running a Celeron 2.6Ghz 2GB of RAM and an Nvidia 7300GT .
Also not too shabby.The Windows machine has a tad faster processor ( a Phenom 2.5ghz ) , but other than that has the same amount of RAM and same video card .
I 've dual-booted Linux on that machine with no improvement compared to my dedicated Linux desktop.My brother on the other hand uses an old computer I gave to him years ago .
AMD Athlon 1.2Ghz with 1GB of RAM and integrated graphics .
Windows XP .
Firefox is snappier on his machine than on either of those two machines above.And before you claim " setup wrong " - this has been an observation made on Ubuntu , Mint , Fedora , Gentoo , and ArchLinux .
I 've been using Linux for almsot 12 years now and no , it 's not running the VESA driver or anything .
The reality is Firefox on Linux is slower - much slower - than Firefox on other platforms .
Maybe not in page rendering speed , but in sheer responsiveness of the UI .
Particularly opening new tabs and closing old ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My Linux box is an AMD Athlon x2 2.3Ghz with 4GB of RAM and an Nvidia 9600GT graphics card.
Hardly a "throwaway computer".
I also have a MythTV box that I've used as a Linux desktop in the past running a Celeron 2.6Ghz 2GB of RAM and an Nvidia 7300GT.
Also not too shabby.The Windows machine has a tad faster processor (a Phenom 2.5ghz), but other than that has the same amount of RAM and same video card.
I've dual-booted Linux on that machine with no improvement compared to my dedicated Linux desktop.My brother on the other hand uses an old computer I gave to him years ago.
AMD Athlon 1.2Ghz with 1GB of RAM and integrated graphics.
Windows XP.
Firefox is snappier on his machine than on either of those two machines above.And before you claim "setup wrong" - this has been an observation made on Ubuntu, Mint, Fedora, Gentoo, and ArchLinux.
I've been using Linux for almsot 12 years now and no, it's not running the VESA driver or anything.
The reality is Firefox on Linux is slower - much slower - than Firefox on other platforms.
Maybe not in page rendering speed, but in sheer responsiveness of the UI.
Particularly opening new tabs and closing old ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30728226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30728226</id>
	<title>Re:Crunchy Goodness!</title>
	<author>Alex Belits</author>
	<datestamp>1263202740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now, Firefox on Windows isn't that bad. Pretty snappy. Firefox on Mac isn't as good, but still OK. Firefox on Linux drags along at a speed slow enough for you to think someone is intentionally sabotaging it. I don't care how much memory it's using, but if the UI feels draggy I don't want it.</p></div><p>That's because you run Windows on your shiny new box with &gt;4G of RAM, your Mac is the last model that used PPC, and you run Linux on a throwaway computer that can't run any other OS that you know about.</p><p>Stop running Linux on crappy hardware.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , Firefox on Windows is n't that bad .
Pretty snappy .
Firefox on Mac is n't as good , but still OK. Firefox on Linux drags along at a speed slow enough for you to think someone is intentionally sabotaging it .
I do n't care how much memory it 's using , but if the UI feels draggy I do n't want it.That 's because you run Windows on your shiny new box with &gt; 4G of RAM , your Mac is the last model that used PPC , and you run Linux on a throwaway computer that ca n't run any other OS that you know about.Stop running Linux on crappy hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, Firefox on Windows isn't that bad.
Pretty snappy.
Firefox on Mac isn't as good, but still OK. Firefox on Linux drags along at a speed slow enough for you to think someone is intentionally sabotaging it.
I don't care how much memory it's using, but if the UI feels draggy I don't want it.That's because you run Windows on your shiny new box with &gt;4G of RAM, your Mac is the last model that used PPC, and you run Linux on a throwaway computer that can't run any other OS that you know about.Stop running Linux on crappy hardware.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30725024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724598</id>
	<title>they need QA, not drummers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263232500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If IE and Chrome can play perfectly-smooth flash video, but Firefox makes it stutter, QA SHOULD HAVE CAUGHT THAT SHIT!</p><p>How about they roll up their sleeves and do REAL work: find and fix the major glitches. That is more important than vague mission statements.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If IE and Chrome can play perfectly-smooth flash video , but Firefox makes it stutter , QA SHOULD HAVE CAUGHT THAT SHIT ! How about they roll up their sleeves and do REAL work : find and fix the major glitches .
That is more important than vague mission statements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If IE and Chrome can play perfectly-smooth flash video, but Firefox makes it stutter, QA SHOULD HAVE CAUGHT THAT SHIT!How about they roll up their sleeves and do REAL work: find and fix the major glitches.
That is more important than vague mission statements.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724706</id>
	<title>Re:Mozilla Foundation is badly managed.</title>
	<author>BrokenHalo</author>
	<datestamp>1263232980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Firefox is so unstable it regularly crashes Windows XP, although not Linux, apparently.</i> <br> <br>
The only time I've seen Firefox crash on XP is when my former boss let his 10-year-old son install crapware like dodgy mouse cursors and so forth on his wife's machine. I primarily use Linux and OS X, and I haven't seen Firefox crash in years (literally), although I work it pretty hard. And certainly not do anything as drastic as making the machine fall over.<br> <br>
Seems to me this alleged instability should be addressed apropos of your operating system, not Firefox.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox is so unstable it regularly crashes Windows XP , although not Linux , apparently .
The only time I 've seen Firefox crash on XP is when my former boss let his 10-year-old son install crapware like dodgy mouse cursors and so forth on his wife 's machine .
I primarily use Linux and OS X , and I have n't seen Firefox crash in years ( literally ) , although I work it pretty hard .
And certainly not do anything as drastic as making the machine fall over .
Seems to me this alleged instability should be addressed apropos of your operating system , not Firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox is so unstable it regularly crashes Windows XP, although not Linux, apparently.
The only time I've seen Firefox crash on XP is when my former boss let his 10-year-old son install crapware like dodgy mouse cursors and so forth on his wife's machine.
I primarily use Linux and OS X, and I haven't seen Firefox crash in years (literally), although I work it pretty hard.
And certainly not do anything as drastic as making the machine fall over.
Seems to me this alleged instability should be addressed apropos of your operating system, not Firefox.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723850</id>
	<title>Re:Drumbeat?</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1263228840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't know what this drumbeat is, but I keep having a tap,tap,tap,,,tap in my head and it's driving me mad. Can you hear it?</p></div><p>Maybe the ringing in my ears should meet the tapping in your head -- they could form a band!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know what this drumbeat is , but I keep having a tap,tap,tap,,,tap in my head and it 's driving me mad .
Can you hear it ? Maybe the ringing in my ears should meet the tapping in your head -- they could form a band !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know what this drumbeat is, but I keep having a tap,tap,tap,,,tap in my head and it's driving me mad.
Can you hear it?Maybe the ringing in my ears should meet the tapping in your head -- they could form a band!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724430</id>
	<title>Re:Open cloud vs Facebook, Google, Twitter</title>
	<author>GNU.Stalman</author>
	<datestamp>1263231840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Preach it, brother!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Preach it , brother !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Preach it, brother!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723712</id>
	<title>I have an idea</title>
	<author>Jason Quinn</author>
	<datestamp>1263228180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Imagine if Firefox was perfect and the web environment was stable: in other words there was no need to change it anymore until the environment changed. Would the Mozilla folks let it be? No because people are now employed by the Mozilla Foundation and jobs are at stake. Firefox is effectively a commercial product now. As happens to nearly every commercial software product that meets its users needs and original design goals, the software will come to experience feature bloat as the developers try to keep the attention of its userbase. (For the record, I think the claims that it is already bloatware are premature.) Feature bloat and change for the sake of change are the future of Firefox and it will all come in the name of "innovation".

PS In any case, the Linux version of Firefox could use some attention devs!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine if Firefox was perfect and the web environment was stable : in other words there was no need to change it anymore until the environment changed .
Would the Mozilla folks let it be ?
No because people are now employed by the Mozilla Foundation and jobs are at stake .
Firefox is effectively a commercial product now .
As happens to nearly every commercial software product that meets its users needs and original design goals , the software will come to experience feature bloat as the developers try to keep the attention of its userbase .
( For the record , I think the claims that it is already bloatware are premature .
) Feature bloat and change for the sake of change are the future of Firefox and it will all come in the name of " innovation " .
PS In any case , the Linux version of Firefox could use some attention devs !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine if Firefox was perfect and the web environment was stable: in other words there was no need to change it anymore until the environment changed.
Would the Mozilla folks let it be?
No because people are now employed by the Mozilla Foundation and jobs are at stake.
Firefox is effectively a commercial product now.
As happens to nearly every commercial software product that meets its users needs and original design goals, the software will come to experience feature bloat as the developers try to keep the attention of its userbase.
(For the record, I think the claims that it is already bloatware are premature.
) Feature bloat and change for the sake of change are the future of Firefox and it will all come in the name of "innovation".
PS In any case, the Linux version of Firefox could use some attention devs!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30725024</id>
	<title>Re:Crunchy Goodness!</title>
	<author>MBGMorden</author>
	<datestamp>1263234000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The UI will likely never be quite as fast due to XUL,</p> </div><p>Therein lies the problem.  Memory management to me doesn't become a problem unless I run out (and I've made sure that on my desktop machines, I won't run out).   What matters to me is the speed at which I can interact with my desktop.</p><p>Now, Firefox on Windows isn't that bad.  Pretty snappy.  Firefox on Mac isn't as good, but still OK.  Firefox on Linux drags along at a speed slow enough for you to think someone is intentionally sabotaging it.  I don't care how much memory it's using, but if the UI feels draggy I don't want it.</p><p>Chrome on the other hand - feels like greased lighting in comparison.  It's fast and snappy across all three platforms.   What's bad is that for a UI LOOK perspective I don't like Chrome.  I have to use an addon to make sure new tabs always open at the end of the list, and I wish to goodness that there was a way to move the tabs below the address bar.  Not to mention that downloads open at the bottom of my browser rather than in a seperate window.  Still, despite those quirks, I've taken to using Chrome on everything just because of it's speed. It's also proven more stable for me.  Firefox will typically slow to a crawl if you leave certain Javascript heavy pages open on it for an extended amount of time.  If I leave the same ones open on Chrome it's fine when I come back the next day.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The UI will likely never be quite as fast due to XUL , Therein lies the problem .
Memory management to me does n't become a problem unless I run out ( and I 've made sure that on my desktop machines , I wo n't run out ) .
What matters to me is the speed at which I can interact with my desktop.Now , Firefox on Windows is n't that bad .
Pretty snappy .
Firefox on Mac is n't as good , but still OK. Firefox on Linux drags along at a speed slow enough for you to think someone is intentionally sabotaging it .
I do n't care how much memory it 's using , but if the UI feels draggy I do n't want it.Chrome on the other hand - feels like greased lighting in comparison .
It 's fast and snappy across all three platforms .
What 's bad is that for a UI LOOK perspective I do n't like Chrome .
I have to use an addon to make sure new tabs always open at the end of the list , and I wish to goodness that there was a way to move the tabs below the address bar .
Not to mention that downloads open at the bottom of my browser rather than in a seperate window .
Still , despite those quirks , I 've taken to using Chrome on everything just because of it 's speed .
It 's also proven more stable for me .
Firefox will typically slow to a crawl if you leave certain Javascript heavy pages open on it for an extended amount of time .
If I leave the same ones open on Chrome it 's fine when I come back the next day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The UI will likely never be quite as fast due to XUL, Therein lies the problem.
Memory management to me doesn't become a problem unless I run out (and I've made sure that on my desktop machines, I won't run out).
What matters to me is the speed at which I can interact with my desktop.Now, Firefox on Windows isn't that bad.
Pretty snappy.
Firefox on Mac isn't as good, but still OK.  Firefox on Linux drags along at a speed slow enough for you to think someone is intentionally sabotaging it.
I don't care how much memory it's using, but if the UI feels draggy I don't want it.Chrome on the other hand - feels like greased lighting in comparison.
It's fast and snappy across all three platforms.
What's bad is that for a UI LOOK perspective I don't like Chrome.
I have to use an addon to make sure new tabs always open at the end of the list, and I wish to goodness that there was a way to move the tabs below the address bar.
Not to mention that downloads open at the bottom of my browser rather than in a seperate window.
Still, despite those quirks, I've taken to using Chrome on everything just because of it's speed.
It's also proven more stable for me.
Firefox will typically slow to a crawl if you leave certain Javascript heavy pages open on it for an extended amount of time.
If I leave the same ones open on Chrome it's fine when I come back the next day.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724640</id>
	<title>Re:Drumbeat?</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1263232740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but that's because I'm listening to the really long version of "In a gadda-da-vida" right now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but that 's because I 'm listening to the really long version of " In a gadda-da-vida " right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but that's because I'm listening to the really long version of "In a gadda-da-vida" right now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723630</id>
	<title>Crunchy Goodness!</title>
	<author>Frosty Piss</author>
	<datestamp>1263227820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Rah, rah, rah! Open standards! Who will not support that! It's got OSS Crunchy Goodness! <br> <br>Actually, what I'd really like to see in FF is *LESS BLOAT* and some attention to memory management... I'll wait...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rah , rah , rah !
Open standards !
Who will not support that !
It 's got OSS Crunchy Goodness !
Actually , what I 'd really like to see in FF is * LESS BLOAT * and some attention to memory management... I 'll wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rah, rah, rah!
Open standards!
Who will not support that!
It's got OSS Crunchy Goodness!
Actually, what I'd really like to see in FF is *LESS BLOAT* and some attention to memory management... I'll wait...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723780</id>
	<title>Open cloud vs Facebook, Google, Twitter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263228480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The largest challenge to openness stares us in the face every day, and nobody seems to notice: Much of our data is stored in proprietary servers controlled by private companies, including Facebook, Google, and Twitter. The Internet was consciously and carefully engineered to put the power in the hands of the end user; data was stored at the end point in open formats (think of POP/IMAP mail and USENET forums, for example). Now a new generation of less sophisticated users hands over their personal data to private companies. Not only are there serious privacy risks, but we've lost control of our data. You are dependent on Facebook's good will to migrate *your* data to another application. What happens when your cloud vendor goes out of business?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The largest challenge to openness stares us in the face every day , and nobody seems to notice : Much of our data is stored in proprietary servers controlled by private companies , including Facebook , Google , and Twitter .
The Internet was consciously and carefully engineered to put the power in the hands of the end user ; data was stored at the end point in open formats ( think of POP/IMAP mail and USENET forums , for example ) .
Now a new generation of less sophisticated users hands over their personal data to private companies .
Not only are there serious privacy risks , but we 've lost control of our data .
You are dependent on Facebook 's good will to migrate * your * data to another application .
What happens when your cloud vendor goes out of business ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The largest challenge to openness stares us in the face every day, and nobody seems to notice: Much of our data is stored in proprietary servers controlled by private companies, including Facebook, Google, and Twitter.
The Internet was consciously and carefully engineered to put the power in the hands of the end user; data was stored at the end point in open formats (think of POP/IMAP mail and USENET forums, for example).
Now a new generation of less sophisticated users hands over their personal data to private companies.
Not only are there serious privacy risks, but we've lost control of our data.
You are dependent on Facebook's good will to migrate *your* data to another application.
What happens when your cloud vendor goes out of business?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724868</id>
	<title>Re:Mozilla Foundation is badly managed.</title>
	<author>Pojut</author>
	<datestamp>1263233520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In return, Firefox is the most unstable program in common use. Every new version includes "stability improvements", but the instability has gotten considerably worse since version 3.5.2. Firefox is so unstable it regularly crashes Windows XP, although not Linux, apparently.</p> </div><p>I have the <b>exact</b> opposite experience in my personal use...Firefox more or less never crashes on my XP machine, yet crashes at least a couple of times a week on my Dell Mini 9 with Ubuntu 9.10 installed and kept up to date.  True, the desktop XP machine has 4GB of ram while the Mini 9 is only rocking out with 2GB, but all of my "heavy" internet browsing and viewing is done on the desktop.  Firefox on my Mini 9 is used primarily for Slashdot, [H]ard|Forum, Facebook, and Kongregate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In return , Firefox is the most unstable program in common use .
Every new version includes " stability improvements " , but the instability has gotten considerably worse since version 3.5.2 .
Firefox is so unstable it regularly crashes Windows XP , although not Linux , apparently .
I have the exact opposite experience in my personal use...Firefox more or less never crashes on my XP machine , yet crashes at least a couple of times a week on my Dell Mini 9 with Ubuntu 9.10 installed and kept up to date .
True , the desktop XP machine has 4GB of ram while the Mini 9 is only rocking out with 2GB , but all of my " heavy " internet browsing and viewing is done on the desktop .
Firefox on my Mini 9 is used primarily for Slashdot , [ H ] ard | Forum , Facebook , and Kongregate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In return, Firefox is the most unstable program in common use.
Every new version includes "stability improvements", but the instability has gotten considerably worse since version 3.5.2.
Firefox is so unstable it regularly crashes Windows XP, although not Linux, apparently.
I have the exact opposite experience in my personal use...Firefox more or less never crashes on my XP machine, yet crashes at least a couple of times a week on my Dell Mini 9 with Ubuntu 9.10 installed and kept up to date.
True, the desktop XP machine has 4GB of ram while the Mini 9 is only rocking out with 2GB, but all of my "heavy" internet browsing and viewing is done on the desktop.
Firefox on my Mini 9 is used primarily for Slashdot, [H]ard|Forum, Facebook, and Kongregate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30725806</id>
	<title>Re:I have an idea</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1263237120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Would the Mozilla folks let it be? No... Firefox is effectively a commercial product now. As happens to nearly every commercial software product that meets its users needs and original design goals, the software will come to experience feature bloat as the developers try to keep the attention of its userbase.</p></div><p>That has been common, but it's not universal.  Take OSX as a counter-example.  Apple just released 10.6, which didn't offer many new features but was more aimed at stripping out bloat, increasing efficiency, and preparing for the future.  Open source software has an additional safeguard against the sort of bloat you're describing in that, if it becomes sufficiently bloated that people are unhappy, the project can be forked.
</p><p>Not that you're completely wrong, since it is pretty common that software packages reach a certain point of being "feature complete" and then stagnate and bloat.  I don't think it's inevitable, but probably it's happens because (a) the fun stuff is done, and the developers don't want to put in the boring work of making incremental efficiency improvements; and (b) no one of sufficient imagination is working on the project to develop a vision for where it should go in the future.  Because of these two factors, instead of continually refining and updating the software or pushing off into a particular new direction, the developers will just tack on whatever improvements that they can think of and hope that it sells.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would the Mozilla folks let it be ?
No... Firefox is effectively a commercial product now .
As happens to nearly every commercial software product that meets its users needs and original design goals , the software will come to experience feature bloat as the developers try to keep the attention of its userbase.That has been common , but it 's not universal .
Take OSX as a counter-example .
Apple just released 10.6 , which did n't offer many new features but was more aimed at stripping out bloat , increasing efficiency , and preparing for the future .
Open source software has an additional safeguard against the sort of bloat you 're describing in that , if it becomes sufficiently bloated that people are unhappy , the project can be forked .
Not that you 're completely wrong , since it is pretty common that software packages reach a certain point of being " feature complete " and then stagnate and bloat .
I do n't think it 's inevitable , but probably it 's happens because ( a ) the fun stuff is done , and the developers do n't want to put in the boring work of making incremental efficiency improvements ; and ( b ) no one of sufficient imagination is working on the project to develop a vision for where it should go in the future .
Because of these two factors , instead of continually refining and updating the software or pushing off into a particular new direction , the developers will just tack on whatever improvements that they can think of and hope that it sells .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would the Mozilla folks let it be?
No... Firefox is effectively a commercial product now.
As happens to nearly every commercial software product that meets its users needs and original design goals, the software will come to experience feature bloat as the developers try to keep the attention of its userbase.That has been common, but it's not universal.
Take OSX as a counter-example.
Apple just released 10.6, which didn't offer many new features but was more aimed at stripping out bloat, increasing efficiency, and preparing for the future.
Open source software has an additional safeguard against the sort of bloat you're describing in that, if it becomes sufficiently bloated that people are unhappy, the project can be forked.
Not that you're completely wrong, since it is pretty common that software packages reach a certain point of being "feature complete" and then stagnate and bloat.
I don't think it's inevitable, but probably it's happens because (a) the fun stuff is done, and the developers don't want to put in the boring work of making incremental efficiency improvements; and (b) no one of sufficient imagination is working on the project to develop a vision for where it should go in the future.
Because of these two factors, instead of continually refining and updating the software or pushing off into a particular new direction, the developers will just tack on whatever improvements that they can think of and hope that it sells.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30801004</id>
	<title>Re:Open cloud vs Facebook, Google, Twitter</title>
	<author>Gaffod</author>
	<datestamp>1263721740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The data gets sold and resold and eventually spills out all over the place, we end up with everybody's whole life indexed and freely, easily accessible. Insurance companies, business, intelligence organizations, law enforcement and so on adapt accordingly and everybody realizes how much screwed they are when the full implications of utter abolition of their privacy sink in. From there, it depends. In the best case, a paranoid minority may have managed to keep at least some of their stuff private, and develop methods to do so, which can then be used by the rest of the public to fix the mess. Or possibly it'll just be too late by the time people realize they need to think about what they stick on their MySpace.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The data gets sold and resold and eventually spills out all over the place , we end up with everybody 's whole life indexed and freely , easily accessible .
Insurance companies , business , intelligence organizations , law enforcement and so on adapt accordingly and everybody realizes how much screwed they are when the full implications of utter abolition of their privacy sink in .
From there , it depends .
In the best case , a paranoid minority may have managed to keep at least some of their stuff private , and develop methods to do so , which can then be used by the rest of the public to fix the mess .
Or possibly it 'll just be too late by the time people realize they need to think about what they stick on their MySpace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The data gets sold and resold and eventually spills out all over the place, we end up with everybody's whole life indexed and freely, easily accessible.
Insurance companies, business, intelligence organizations, law enforcement and so on adapt accordingly and everybody realizes how much screwed they are when the full implications of utter abolition of their privacy sink in.
From there, it depends.
In the best case, a paranoid minority may have managed to keep at least some of their stuff private, and develop methods to do so, which can then be used by the rest of the public to fix the mess.
Or possibly it'll just be too late by the time people realize they need to think about what they stick on their MySpace.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724110</id>
	<title>Yes, you can mod me as troll.</title>
	<author>Verdatum</author>
	<datestamp>1263230100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Too long; didn't read.  Repeating the same mission statement 3 or 4 times with minor modifications doesn't make for a terribly great article.  Generally, mission statements shouldn't even be expressed the first time around.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Too long ; did n't read .
Repeating the same mission statement 3 or 4 times with minor modifications does n't make for a terribly great article .
Generally , mission statements should n't even be expressed the first time around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too long; didn't read.
Repeating the same mission statement 3 or 4 times with minor modifications doesn't make for a terribly great article.
Generally, mission statements shouldn't even be expressed the first time around.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724560</id>
	<title>They're investing $1 million plus in this</title>
	<author>darthcamaro</author>
	<datestamp>1263232320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
There is a full interview with Surman about some of the specific drumbeat projects at:

<a href="http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3857436/Mozilla-Drumbeat-Aims-to-Expand-Web-Participation.htm" title="earthweb.com">http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3857436/Mozilla-Drumbeat-Aims-to-Expand-Web-Participation.htm</a> [earthweb.com]

There is an open p2p university and an open web privacy logo initiative that are kinda cool. An od ya Mozilla is investing $1 million into this too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a full interview with Surman about some of the specific drumbeat projects at : http : //itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3857436/Mozilla-Drumbeat-Aims-to-Expand-Web-Participation.htm [ earthweb.com ] There is an open p2p university and an open web privacy logo initiative that are kinda cool .
An od ya Mozilla is investing $ 1 million into this too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
There is a full interview with Surman about some of the specific drumbeat projects at:

http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3857436/Mozilla-Drumbeat-Aims-to-Expand-Web-Participation.htm [earthweb.com]

There is an open p2p university and an open web privacy logo initiative that are kinda cool.
An od ya Mozilla is investing $1 million into this too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724078</id>
	<title>Re:Crunchy Goodness!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263229980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why I've finally dropped Firefox on my Mac.</p><p>It's been a great ride, and I thank them for what they've done. I still run it on my Work PC. (Until Google figures out how to make programs that run behind authenticated proxies).</p><p>But they've become just as complacent with their memory usage as Microsoft did with IE6 sucking. Only programs I've ever had use MORE were Photoshop when I'm doing batch processing of HDR images and VMWare when I've given the guest &gt;1024MB of RAM, and even then, they don't beat Firefox by a large margin.</p><p>There will be times my computer is running slow as hell and I'll look up at memory usage and Firefox is above 800M, I'll kill it and start over.</p><p>Finally I had enough. I researched my 'Ad Block Plus' options and found <a href="http://glimmerblocker.org/" title="glimmerblocker.org">Glimmer Blocker</a> [glimmerblocker.org]. It's set up as proxy which means I can use it with all Web Browsers. It supports most GreaseMonkey scripts as is. I can insert CSS, etc. Only downside (which is good) is that it doesn't do anything to https connections.</p><p>XMarks syncs all my bookmarks. LastPass syncs all my passwords and so right now Chromium and WebKit Nightly are getting 50/50 usage to see which one I like better.</p><p>Chromium has a bare minimum of extensions(XMarks, LastPass, Blank New Tab &amp; Facebook fixer). Chrome just flys. Hell there would be times when I'd hav e Chromeium browsing the web. Safari on Youtube and Firefox having 0 windows open, but it still is managing to consume 600MB of RAM while Safari and Chromium aren't even in the top 10.</p><p>The *ONE* thing I thought I would miss the most was Firebug. Until I realized both Chromium/Chrome and Webkit/Safari have Javascript Profiling tools built in and other stuff that put Firebug to shame. I wouldn't be surprised if it's probably what Google uses to develop most of their stuff.</p><p>I've left both browsers up for days and fired up an occasional firefox and after 20 minutes I watch my little menu bar graph creep up until my computer was swapping and being slow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why I 've finally dropped Firefox on my Mac.It 's been a great ride , and I thank them for what they 've done .
I still run it on my Work PC .
( Until Google figures out how to make programs that run behind authenticated proxies ) .But they 've become just as complacent with their memory usage as Microsoft did with IE6 sucking .
Only programs I 've ever had use MORE were Photoshop when I 'm doing batch processing of HDR images and VMWare when I 've given the guest &gt; 1024MB of RAM , and even then , they do n't beat Firefox by a large margin.There will be times my computer is running slow as hell and I 'll look up at memory usage and Firefox is above 800M , I 'll kill it and start over.Finally I had enough .
I researched my 'Ad Block Plus ' options and found Glimmer Blocker [ glimmerblocker.org ] .
It 's set up as proxy which means I can use it with all Web Browsers .
It supports most GreaseMonkey scripts as is .
I can insert CSS , etc .
Only downside ( which is good ) is that it does n't do anything to https connections.XMarks syncs all my bookmarks .
LastPass syncs all my passwords and so right now Chromium and WebKit Nightly are getting 50/50 usage to see which one I like better.Chromium has a bare minimum of extensions ( XMarks , LastPass , Blank New Tab &amp; Facebook fixer ) .
Chrome just flys .
Hell there would be times when I 'd hav e Chromeium browsing the web .
Safari on Youtube and Firefox having 0 windows open , but it still is managing to consume 600MB of RAM while Safari and Chromium are n't even in the top 10.The * ONE * thing I thought I would miss the most was Firebug .
Until I realized both Chromium/Chrome and Webkit/Safari have Javascript Profiling tools built in and other stuff that put Firebug to shame .
I would n't be surprised if it 's probably what Google uses to develop most of their stuff.I 've left both browsers up for days and fired up an occasional firefox and after 20 minutes I watch my little menu bar graph creep up until my computer was swapping and being slow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why I've finally dropped Firefox on my Mac.It's been a great ride, and I thank them for what they've done.
I still run it on my Work PC.
(Until Google figures out how to make programs that run behind authenticated proxies).But they've become just as complacent with their memory usage as Microsoft did with IE6 sucking.
Only programs I've ever had use MORE were Photoshop when I'm doing batch processing of HDR images and VMWare when I've given the guest &gt;1024MB of RAM, and even then, they don't beat Firefox by a large margin.There will be times my computer is running slow as hell and I'll look up at memory usage and Firefox is above 800M, I'll kill it and start over.Finally I had enough.
I researched my 'Ad Block Plus' options and found Glimmer Blocker [glimmerblocker.org].
It's set up as proxy which means I can use it with all Web Browsers.
It supports most GreaseMonkey scripts as is.
I can insert CSS, etc.
Only downside (which is good) is that it doesn't do anything to https connections.XMarks syncs all my bookmarks.
LastPass syncs all my passwords and so right now Chromium and WebKit Nightly are getting 50/50 usage to see which one I like better.Chromium has a bare minimum of extensions(XMarks, LastPass, Blank New Tab &amp; Facebook fixer).
Chrome just flys.
Hell there would be times when I'd hav e Chromeium browsing the web.
Safari on Youtube and Firefox having 0 windows open, but it still is managing to consume 600MB of RAM while Safari and Chromium aren't even in the top 10.The *ONE* thing I thought I would miss the most was Firebug.
Until I realized both Chromium/Chrome and Webkit/Safari have Javascript Profiling tools built in and other stuff that put Firebug to shame.
I wouldn't be surprised if it's probably what Google uses to develop most of their stuff.I've left both browsers up for days and fired up an occasional firefox and after 20 minutes I watch my little menu bar graph creep up until my computer was swapping and being slow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723896</id>
	<title>Re:Drumbeat?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263229020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>4 heartbeats</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>4 heartbeats</tokentext>
<sentencetext>4 heartbeats</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724030</id>
	<title>Mozilla Foundation is badly managed.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263229740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have you seen $200 million worth of development in Firefox? The Mozilla
foundation has been getting more
than $68,000,000 <i>each year</i> to make Google the default search engine in
Firefox. See this article, for example: <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/154198/google\_deal\_produces\_91\_of\_mozillas\_revenue.html" title="pcworld.com">Google Deal Produces 91\% of Mozilla's Revenue</a> [pcworld.com].

<br> <br>In return, Firefox is the most unstable program in common use. Every
new version includes "stability improvements", but the instability has gotten
considerably worse since version 3.5.2. Firefox is so unstable it regularly crashes
Windows XP, although not Linux, apparently.

<br> <br>This instability has been reported many times by many people for many years, according to discussions online.  For just one small example, see the comments tab for this crash report ID:
<a href="http://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/67f332db-205a-4944-8f88-1bb7a2091220" title="mozilla.com">67f332db-205a-4944-8f88-1bb7a2091220</a> [mozilla.com]. (Not a crash from one of our computers.)
Typical comments from that comment tab:
<br> <br>"I can't believe how often firefox is crashing recently on multiple computers!!!"
<br>"This is ridiculous! It happens everyday!"
<br>"Mozilla crashes on average 10 a day. Can you help?"
<br>"firefox is crashing on me twice a day. any advice please? thanks Graham"
<br>"This new version of Mozilla sucks. It crashes on my multiple times each day."
<br>"I keep going from tab to tab and after a while Mozilla crashes.."
<br>"please fix this crash problem, thanks"

<br> <br>Firefox is popular because of its add-ons, apparently. People don't want to watch abusive, flashing ads that assume that the reader is stupid, so they use AdBlock Plus. When the same extensions exist for Google's browser, it seems likely that Firefox will lose popularity.

<br> <br>It seems to me that Mozilla Foundation is badly managed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you seen $ 200 million worth of development in Firefox ?
The Mozilla foundation has been getting more than $ 68,000,000 each year to make Google the default search engine in Firefox .
See this article , for example : Google Deal Produces 91 \ % of Mozilla 's Revenue [ pcworld.com ] .
In return , Firefox is the most unstable program in common use .
Every new version includes " stability improvements " , but the instability has gotten considerably worse since version 3.5.2 .
Firefox is so unstable it regularly crashes Windows XP , although not Linux , apparently .
This instability has been reported many times by many people for many years , according to discussions online .
For just one small example , see the comments tab for this crash report ID : 67f332db-205a-4944-8f88-1bb7a2091220 [ mozilla.com ] .
( Not a crash from one of our computers .
) Typical comments from that comment tab : " I ca n't believe how often firefox is crashing recently on multiple computers ! ! !
" " This is ridiculous !
It happens everyday !
" " Mozilla crashes on average 10 a day .
Can you help ?
" " firefox is crashing on me twice a day .
any advice please ?
thanks Graham " " This new version of Mozilla sucks .
It crashes on my multiple times each day .
" " I keep going from tab to tab and after a while Mozilla crashes.. " " please fix this crash problem , thanks " Firefox is popular because of its add-ons , apparently .
People do n't want to watch abusive , flashing ads that assume that the reader is stupid , so they use AdBlock Plus .
When the same extensions exist for Google 's browser , it seems likely that Firefox will lose popularity .
It seems to me that Mozilla Foundation is badly managed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you seen $200 million worth of development in Firefox?
The Mozilla
foundation has been getting more
than $68,000,000 each year to make Google the default search engine in
Firefox.
See this article, for example: Google Deal Produces 91\% of Mozilla's Revenue [pcworld.com].
In return, Firefox is the most unstable program in common use.
Every
new version includes "stability improvements", but the instability has gotten
considerably worse since version 3.5.2.
Firefox is so unstable it regularly crashes
Windows XP, although not Linux, apparently.
This instability has been reported many times by many people for many years, according to discussions online.
For just one small example, see the comments tab for this crash report ID:
67f332db-205a-4944-8f88-1bb7a2091220 [mozilla.com].
(Not a crash from one of our computers.
)
Typical comments from that comment tab:
 "I can't believe how often firefox is crashing recently on multiple computers!!!
"
"This is ridiculous!
It happens everyday!
"
"Mozilla crashes on average 10 a day.
Can you help?
"
"firefox is crashing on me twice a day.
any advice please?
thanks Graham"
"This new version of Mozilla sucks.
It crashes on my multiple times each day.
"
"I keep going from tab to tab and after a while Mozilla crashes.."
"please fix this crash problem, thanks"

 Firefox is popular because of its add-ons, apparently.
People don't want to watch abusive, flashing ads that assume that the reader is stupid, so they use AdBlock Plus.
When the same extensions exist for Google's browser, it seems likely that Firefox will lose popularity.
It seems to me that Mozilla Foundation is badly managed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724498</id>
	<title>Re:What to do after ?</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1263232080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Any organization that gets that kind of control eventually capitalizes on it.</p></div><p>Worse, any organization that gets too much control will impede the progress of others.
</p><p>Capitalizing on success is fine.  I don't have a problem with Microsoft making money from their browser.  I have a problem with IE being the de facto standard and stifling all innovations that Microsoft chooses not to implement in their browser.
</p><p>And notice I'm not even talking about any misbehavior on Microsoft's part.  The point is that monoculture is bad.  Monoculture means no competition, which means no innovation that the monoculture doesn't approve of.  Plus, on a side note, monoculture means that a single security hole will necessarily be shared by everyone.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any organization that gets that kind of control eventually capitalizes on it.Worse , any organization that gets too much control will impede the progress of others .
Capitalizing on success is fine .
I do n't have a problem with Microsoft making money from their browser .
I have a problem with IE being the de facto standard and stifling all innovations that Microsoft chooses not to implement in their browser .
And notice I 'm not even talking about any misbehavior on Microsoft 's part .
The point is that monoculture is bad .
Monoculture means no competition , which means no innovation that the monoculture does n't approve of .
Plus , on a side note , monoculture means that a single security hole will necessarily be shared by everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Any organization that gets that kind of control eventually capitalizes on it.Worse, any organization that gets too much control will impede the progress of others.
Capitalizing on success is fine.
I don't have a problem with Microsoft making money from their browser.
I have a problem with IE being the de facto standard and stifling all innovations that Microsoft chooses not to implement in their browser.
And notice I'm not even talking about any misbehavior on Microsoft's part.
The point is that monoculture is bad.
Monoculture means no competition, which means no innovation that the monoculture doesn't approve of.
Plus, on a side note, monoculture means that a single security hole will necessarily be shared by everyone.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724044</id>
	<title>Re:Communioncator</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263229800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "Dumbeat" project is how they can justify dumbing their software down so that even the most clueless moron won't be confused by the options, because there aren't any.</p><p>Communionicator sounds somewhat Catholic. The Church embracing Web 2.0 or something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " Dumbeat " project is how they can justify dumbing their software down so that even the most clueless moron wo n't be confused by the options , because there are n't any.Communionicator sounds somewhat Catholic .
The Church embracing Web 2.0 or something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "Dumbeat" project is how they can justify dumbing their software down so that even the most clueless moron won't be confused by the options, because there aren't any.Communionicator sounds somewhat Catholic.
The Church embracing Web 2.0 or something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723920</id>
	<title>Re:Drumbeat?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263229140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A Time Lord's heartbeat?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A Time Lord 's heartbeat ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A Time Lord's heartbeat?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30730924</id>
	<title>Re:Crunchy Goodness!</title>
	<author>7-Vodka</author>
	<datestamp>1263213600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Memory management to me doesn't become a problem unless I run out (and I've made sure that on my desktop machines, I won't run out).</p></div><p>
Famous. Last. Words.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Memory management to me does n't become a problem unless I run out ( and I 've made sure that on my desktop machines , I wo n't run out ) .
Famous. Last .
Words .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Memory management to me doesn't become a problem unless I run out (and I've made sure that on my desktop machines, I won't run out).
Famous. Last.
Words.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30725024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30727954</id>
	<title>Re:Open cloud vs Facebook, Google, Twitter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263201780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Managed data is a huge advantage to the 95+\% of average internet users that have no idea how to properly back-up, transfer, and secure their own data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Managed data is a huge advantage to the 95 + \ % of average internet users that have no idea how to properly back-up , transfer , and secure their own data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Managed data is a huge advantage to the 95+\% of average internet users that have no idea how to properly back-up, transfer, and secure their own data.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30729544</id>
	<title>Re:Open cloud vs Facebook, Google, Twitter</title>
	<author>Pebby</author>
	<datestamp>1263207480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The sad thing, to me, is not that this is happening, but, rather, that only a small minority seems to care about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The sad thing , to me , is not that this is happening , but , rather , that only a small minority seems to care about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sad thing, to me, is not that this is happening, but, rather, that only a small minority seems to care about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723732</id>
	<title>Drumbeat?</title>
	<author>Sporkinum</author>
	<datestamp>1263228300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know what this drumbeat is, but I keep having a tap,tap,tap,,,tap in my head and it's driving me mad. Can you hear it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know what this drumbeat is , but I keep having a tap,tap,tap,,,tap in my head and it 's driving me mad .
Can you hear it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know what this drumbeat is, but I keep having a tap,tap,tap,,,tap in my head and it's driving me mad.
Can you hear it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30725292</id>
	<title>No need to worry...</title>
	<author>cereda</author>
	<datestamp>1263235020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Drumbeat will last 'til 2012 and will collapse all Internet. Nice logo thou.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Drumbeat will last 'til 2012 and will collapse all Internet .
Nice logo thou .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Drumbeat will last 'til 2012 and will collapse all Internet.
Nice logo thou.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723890</id>
	<title>Re:Drumbeat?</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1263229020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See?  Told you not to look.  Silly boy.</p><p>Most people just yell "My God!  It's full of stars!".  You, you have to do the drumbeat thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See ?
Told you not to look .
Silly boy.Most people just yell " My God !
It 's full of stars ! " .
You , you have to do the drumbeat thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See?
Told you not to look.
Silly boy.Most people just yell "My God!
It's full of stars!".
You, you have to do the drumbeat thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30725730</id>
	<title>Re:I have an idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263236820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are there particular Linux issues that are bothering you?  "Pay some attention to Linux" isn't nearly as useful as "please fix X, Y, and Z" in terms of getting things to happen.</p><p>I would dearly love to know the actual issues Linux users have, as opposed to generic "it sucks, but I won't tell you why I think that" grumbling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are there particular Linux issues that are bothering you ?
" Pay some attention to Linux " is n't nearly as useful as " please fix X , Y , and Z " in terms of getting things to happen.I would dearly love to know the actual issues Linux users have , as opposed to generic " it sucks , but I wo n't tell you why I think that " grumbling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are there particular Linux issues that are bothering you?
"Pay some attention to Linux" isn't nearly as useful as "please fix X, Y, and Z" in terms of getting things to happen.I would dearly love to know the actual issues Linux users have, as opposed to generic "it sucks, but I won't tell you why I think that" grumbling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723836</id>
	<title>Re:bad writing.</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1263228780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's fits in well with good editorial style.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's fits in well with good editorial style .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's fits in well with good editorial style.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30726754</id>
	<title>The drums, the drums, the never-ending drum beat</title>
	<author>mattcoz</author>
	<datestamp>1263241320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>thump thump thump thump<br>
thump thump thump thump</htmltext>
<tokenext>thump thump thump thump thump thump thump thump</tokentext>
<sentencetext>thump thump thump thump
thump thump thump thump</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724982</id>
	<title>It is bloated, nothing premature about that</title>
	<author>Shivetya</author>
	<datestamp>1263233880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder how long before we get the next great "just the browser ma'am" again.  Kind of like when we got Firefox because the last incarnation was a bloat factory.  Occasionally we get new stripper models out there but none gain traction.</p><p>Hopefully it won't feel so bloated when they thread tabs properly, damn if some pages don't make me feel that Firefox locked up.  There are still pages Safari or IE will display properly that Firefox won't.</p><p>As for it "becoming" a commercial product, I never thought it wasn't.  Foundation is the modern sweet term for Corporation.  It might have meant otherwise before but not anymore.</p><p>Still I won't give it up for anything else, but at times I do want to scream at them</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how long before we get the next great " just the browser ma'am " again .
Kind of like when we got Firefox because the last incarnation was a bloat factory .
Occasionally we get new stripper models out there but none gain traction.Hopefully it wo n't feel so bloated when they thread tabs properly , damn if some pages do n't make me feel that Firefox locked up .
There are still pages Safari or IE will display properly that Firefox wo n't.As for it " becoming " a commercial product , I never thought it was n't .
Foundation is the modern sweet term for Corporation .
It might have meant otherwise before but not anymore.Still I wo n't give it up for anything else , but at times I do want to scream at them</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how long before we get the next great "just the browser ma'am" again.
Kind of like when we got Firefox because the last incarnation was a bloat factory.
Occasionally we get new stripper models out there but none gain traction.Hopefully it won't feel so bloated when they thread tabs properly, damn if some pages don't make me feel that Firefox locked up.
There are still pages Safari or IE will display properly that Firefox won't.As for it "becoming" a commercial product, I never thought it wasn't.
Foundation is the modern sweet term for Corporation.
It might have meant otherwise before but not anymore.Still I won't give it up for anything else, but at times I do want to scream at them</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30726384</id>
	<title>Re:Crunchy Goodness!</title>
	<author>jasonwc</author>
	<datestamp>1263239880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really? Every time I open a tab in Firefox, memory usage increases. Closing tabs does not reduce usage. After a day or two, memory usage exceeds 300 MB even with only a few tabs open on a Windows 7 system with 4 GB of RAM. I've seen this on numerous systems with Windows 7 and on Windows XP SP3. I don't think my experience is unusual.</p><p>I think Firefox is a great browser, and I don't see myself switching to Chrome because of the lack of Adblock Plus and the "Awesome Bar". The latter has made it exceedingly easy to manage and access hundreds of bookmarks. However, I do not think memory management has ever been a strength of Firefox.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
Every time I open a tab in Firefox , memory usage increases .
Closing tabs does not reduce usage .
After a day or two , memory usage exceeds 300 MB even with only a few tabs open on a Windows 7 system with 4 GB of RAM .
I 've seen this on numerous systems with Windows 7 and on Windows XP SP3 .
I do n't think my experience is unusual.I think Firefox is a great browser , and I do n't see myself switching to Chrome because of the lack of Adblock Plus and the " Awesome Bar " .
The latter has made it exceedingly easy to manage and access hundreds of bookmarks .
However , I do not think memory management has ever been a strength of Firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
Every time I open a tab in Firefox, memory usage increases.
Closing tabs does not reduce usage.
After a day or two, memory usage exceeds 300 MB even with only a few tabs open on a Windows 7 system with 4 GB of RAM.
I've seen this on numerous systems with Windows 7 and on Windows XP SP3.
I don't think my experience is unusual.I think Firefox is a great browser, and I don't see myself switching to Chrome because of the lack of Adblock Plus and the "Awesome Bar".
The latter has made it exceedingly easy to manage and access hundreds of bookmarks.
However, I do not think memory management has ever been a strength of Firefox.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30727686</id>
	<title>Re:Crunchy Goodness!</title>
	<author>mister\_playboy</author>
	<datestamp>1263200880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>64-bit Flash works just fine for me in Linux on all three of my browsers (Firefox, Chromium, Opera).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>64-bit Flash works just fine for me in Linux on all three of my browsers ( Firefox , Chromium , Opera ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>64-bit Flash works just fine for me in Linux on all three of my browsers (Firefox, Chromium, Opera).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30725762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30725968</id>
	<title>Please don't do this.</title>
	<author>johny42</author>
	<datestamp>1263238140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ending the summary with a cliffhanger? I must RTFA now!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ending the summary with a cliffhanger ?
I must RTFA now !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ending the summary with a cliffhanger?
I must RTFA now!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724348</id>
	<title>Re:Mozilla Foundation is badly managed.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263231480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, I've that there is a trend for schools to stop teach cursive writing, which I couldn't care less about, but have they also stopped teaching the scientific method? Your hypothesis is that FF is the most unstable program in common use, and you back up that hypothesis with your own, no wait, with anecdotal evidence that some people are having issues with FF. The conclusion from that evidence, is that you are correct?</p><p>Have you collected any evidence about other browsers crashing, or any program, as state "most unstable program", and not just browsers. Have you collected data on actual program usage to determine crashes per program use? Have you considered that some, perhaps even all, though unlikely, that those users problems might be caused by another source and not the FF programming? Have you considered...</p><p>The Mozilla Foundation may be badly managed, it may not. From the simple amount of, what can only be considered crap, data you've 'collected' it is impossible to tell, and your assumption that it is badly managed should be considered nothing more than FUD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , I 've that there is a trend for schools to stop teach cursive writing , which I could n't care less about , but have they also stopped teaching the scientific method ?
Your hypothesis is that FF is the most unstable program in common use , and you back up that hypothesis with your own , no wait , with anecdotal evidence that some people are having issues with FF .
The conclusion from that evidence , is that you are correct ? Have you collected any evidence about other browsers crashing , or any program , as state " most unstable program " , and not just browsers .
Have you collected data on actual program usage to determine crashes per program use ?
Have you considered that some , perhaps even all , though unlikely , that those users problems might be caused by another source and not the FF programming ?
Have you considered...The Mozilla Foundation may be badly managed , it may not .
From the simple amount of , what can only be considered crap , data you 've 'collected ' it is impossible to tell , and your assumption that it is badly managed should be considered nothing more than FUD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, I've that there is a trend for schools to stop teach cursive writing, which I couldn't care less about, but have they also stopped teaching the scientific method?
Your hypothesis is that FF is the most unstable program in common use, and you back up that hypothesis with your own, no wait, with anecdotal evidence that some people are having issues with FF.
The conclusion from that evidence, is that you are correct?Have you collected any evidence about other browsers crashing, or any program, as state "most unstable program", and not just browsers.
Have you collected data on actual program usage to determine crashes per program use?
Have you considered that some, perhaps even all, though unlikely, that those users problems might be caused by another source and not the FF programming?
Have you considered...The Mozilla Foundation may be badly managed, it may not.
From the simple amount of, what can only be considered crap, data you've 'collected' it is impossible to tell, and your assumption that it is badly managed should be considered nothing more than FUD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30725448</id>
	<title>Movie?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263235560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone else feel like this is a Movie pitch?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone else feel like this is a Movie pitch ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone else feel like this is a Movie pitch?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723998</id>
	<title>Re:Crunchy Goodness!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263229560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firefox has been much better on memory management since FF3. Everyone talks about Chrome being lean and fast, and FF being this bloated piece of crap.</p><p>You do realize that using current builds of both, Firefox uses less memory? The UI will likely never be quite as fast due to XUL, but Firefox's memory management is pretty dang good. They could probably take a page from how Chrome handles garbage collection with their V8 Javascript engine, but that's another story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox has been much better on memory management since FF3 .
Everyone talks about Chrome being lean and fast , and FF being this bloated piece of crap.You do realize that using current builds of both , Firefox uses less memory ?
The UI will likely never be quite as fast due to XUL , but Firefox 's memory management is pretty dang good .
They could probably take a page from how Chrome handles garbage collection with their V8 Javascript engine , but that 's another story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox has been much better on memory management since FF3.
Everyone talks about Chrome being lean and fast, and FF being this bloated piece of crap.You do realize that using current builds of both, Firefox uses less memory?
The UI will likely never be quite as fast due to XUL, but Firefox's memory management is pretty dang good.
They could probably take a page from how Chrome handles garbage collection with their V8 Javascript engine, but that's another story.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724880</id>
	<title>Re:Open cloud vs Facebook, Google, Twitter</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1263233520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually the article and Mozilla's spokesman address this concern as one of the primary threats to the openness of the web in the future. It is mentioned that this threat, amongst others, will hopefully be addressed by the projects pushed through drumbeat in an attempt to keep information from coalescing into a few central locations. Whether you are cynical or not, like Mozilla or not, or are new here or not, the article is, at the very least, an interesting discussion. I would recommend checking it out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually the article and Mozilla 's spokesman address this concern as one of the primary threats to the openness of the web in the future .
It is mentioned that this threat , amongst others , will hopefully be addressed by the projects pushed through drumbeat in an attempt to keep information from coalescing into a few central locations .
Whether you are cynical or not , like Mozilla or not , or are new here or not , the article is , at the very least , an interesting discussion .
I would recommend checking it out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually the article and Mozilla's spokesman address this concern as one of the primary threats to the openness of the web in the future.
It is mentioned that this threat, amongst others, will hopefully be addressed by the projects pushed through drumbeat in an attempt to keep information from coalescing into a few central locations.
Whether you are cynical or not, like Mozilla or not, or are new here or not, the article is, at the very least, an interesting discussion.
I would recommend checking it out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30726914</id>
	<title>Mozilla Developer Center crash reporting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263241800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>Firefox on Linux drags along at a speed slow enough for you to think someone is intentionally sabotaging it.</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox on Linux drags along at a speed slow enough for you to think someone is intentionally sabotaging it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox on Linux drags along at a speed slow enough for you to think someone is intentionally sabotaging it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30728596</id>
	<title>Re:Crunchy Goodness!</title>
	<author>fmaresca</author>
	<datestamp>1263204060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Totally agree.
And please, please, please, make / a synonymous of ctrl-f in Chrome.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Totally agree .
And please , please , please , make / a synonymous of ctrl-f in Chrome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Totally agree.
And please, please, please, make / a synonymous of ctrl-f in Chrome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30725024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30728376</id>
	<title>Re:Drumbeat?</title>
	<author>Yvan256</author>
	<datestamp>1263203340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That must be annoying. You should see a Doctor about this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That must be annoying .
You should see a Doctor about this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That must be annoying.
You should see a Doctor about this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724374</id>
	<title>Re:Open cloud vs Facebook, Google, Twitter</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1263231660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With all due respect, there's a huge difference between distribution and aggregation. Even in the "good old days" of IRC they were trying to build huge networks of servers which would be your one place to network with all your (geeky) friends. Everybody was very busy trying to avoid duplication of long-distance transfers because despite even though it looked like one Internet then doing "long distnace" was expensive for the ISPs. They'd probably be more spinning in their graves (though they're probably not old enough for that yet, oh how time flies) over the extremely wasteful torrent protocol where we pull data all around the world over tons of hubs and down and back up last-mile connections just to do tit for tat swapping. Being able to pull off one world-wide system would be more of a dream.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With all due respect , there 's a huge difference between distribution and aggregation .
Even in the " good old days " of IRC they were trying to build huge networks of servers which would be your one place to network with all your ( geeky ) friends .
Everybody was very busy trying to avoid duplication of long-distance transfers because despite even though it looked like one Internet then doing " long distnace " was expensive for the ISPs .
They 'd probably be more spinning in their graves ( though they 're probably not old enough for that yet , oh how time flies ) over the extremely wasteful torrent protocol where we pull data all around the world over tons of hubs and down and back up last-mile connections just to do tit for tat swapping .
Being able to pull off one world-wide system would be more of a dream .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With all due respect, there's a huge difference between distribution and aggregation.
Even in the "good old days" of IRC they were trying to build huge networks of servers which would be your one place to network with all your (geeky) friends.
Everybody was very busy trying to avoid duplication of long-distance transfers because despite even though it looked like one Internet then doing "long distnace" was expensive for the ISPs.
They'd probably be more spinning in their graves (though they're probably not old enough for that yet, oh how time flies) over the extremely wasteful torrent protocol where we pull data all around the world over tons of hubs and down and back up last-mile connections just to do tit for tat swapping.
Being able to pull off one world-wide system would be more of a dream.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723778</id>
	<title>WTFBoy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263228480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Idk if it is just me or not, and I did not read the entire article, but is it not a turd in text? It has no point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Idk if it is just me or not , and I did not read the entire article , but is it not a turd in text ?
It has no point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Idk if it is just me or not, and I did not read the entire article, but is it not a turd in text?
It has no point.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723650</id>
	<title>Take Control??</title>
	<author>rodrigoandrade</author>
	<datestamp>1263227940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From TFA:<br><br>"Mozilla Drumbeat is a global community of people and projects using technology to help internet users understand, participate and take control of their online lives."<br><br>It sounds like someone other than myself wants to take control of my online life...</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : " Mozilla Drumbeat is a global community of people and projects using technology to help internet users understand , participate and take control of their online lives .
" It sounds like someone other than myself wants to take control of my online life.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:"Mozilla Drumbeat is a global community of people and projects using technology to help internet users understand, participate and take control of their online lives.
"It sounds like someone other than myself wants to take control of my online life...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30734928</id>
	<title>Re:I have an idea</title>
	<author>Spliffster</author>
	<datestamp>1263295080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes Boris, for example storing history data in sqlite leads to problems on a normal unix installation where the home (and the profile) is stored on an NFS share. When my ff crashes on linux (which unfortunately happens often due flash) my profile ist dead.<br><br>I have started to dump all sqlite databases before starting FF so i can easily recover corrupt sqlite databases after a crash.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes Boris , for example storing history data in sqlite leads to problems on a normal unix installation where the home ( and the profile ) is stored on an NFS share .
When my ff crashes on linux ( which unfortunately happens often due flash ) my profile ist dead.I have started to dump all sqlite databases before starting FF so i can easily recover corrupt sqlite databases after a crash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes Boris, for example storing history data in sqlite leads to problems on a normal unix installation where the home (and the profile) is stored on an NFS share.
When my ff crashes on linux (which unfortunately happens often due flash) my profile ist dead.I have started to dump all sqlite databases before starting FF so i can easily recover corrupt sqlite databases after a crash.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30725730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30725680</id>
	<title>The Sound of Drums</title>
	<author>Tetsujin</author>
	<datestamp>1263236640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The drumming, Can't you hear it? Inside my head. I thought it would stop. But it never does. It never, ever stops. Inside my head. The drumming, Doctor, the constant drumming, It's everywhere. Listen. Listen. Listen. Here come the drums... here come... the drums...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The drumming , Ca n't you hear it ?
Inside my head .
I thought it would stop .
But it never does .
It never , ever stops .
Inside my head .
The drumming , Doctor , the constant drumming , It 's everywhere .
Listen. Listen .
Listen. Here come the drums... here come... the drums.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The drumming, Can't you hear it?
Inside my head.
I thought it would stop.
But it never does.
It never, ever stops.
Inside my head.
The drumming, Doctor, the constant drumming, It's everywhere.
Listen. Listen.
Listen. Here come the drums... here come... the drums...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723844</id>
	<title>Re:bad writing.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263228840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>your heart is *truly* klingon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>your heart is * truly * klingon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>your heart is *truly* klingon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724118</id>
	<title>Re:I have an idea</title>
	<author>Eskarel</author>
	<datestamp>1263230160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I always laugh at comments about feature bloat.</p><p>Unless the features included in software are unused by the vast majority of that software's users, then it is not feature bloat. Just because you personally don't need a feature, and that your personal copy would be faster without it doesn't mean it's bloated, it just means it has a feature that you don't need. Personally I find mail merge to be a completely wasted feature in every office suite I've ever used. People who send a lot of form letters on the other hand, or who need to address the same letter to lots of people, probably disagree. Alternatively, a lot of people find javascript debuggers useless, whereas I install extra ones into my browsers. Some people hate the awesome bar in firefox, I miss it when I'm using another browser.</p><p>Generally speaking, if software is still successful, excluding rare instances where there is zero competition(including older versions of the same product), it's not actually suffering from feature bloat. Software with too many unwanted features generally becomes unusable and so people stop using it. If a lot of people are using it, then at worst it's getting there, and if a lot of people are using that feature, then it's not really bloated at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I always laugh at comments about feature bloat.Unless the features included in software are unused by the vast majority of that software 's users , then it is not feature bloat .
Just because you personally do n't need a feature , and that your personal copy would be faster without it does n't mean it 's bloated , it just means it has a feature that you do n't need .
Personally I find mail merge to be a completely wasted feature in every office suite I 've ever used .
People who send a lot of form letters on the other hand , or who need to address the same letter to lots of people , probably disagree .
Alternatively , a lot of people find javascript debuggers useless , whereas I install extra ones into my browsers .
Some people hate the awesome bar in firefox , I miss it when I 'm using another browser.Generally speaking , if software is still successful , excluding rare instances where there is zero competition ( including older versions of the same product ) , it 's not actually suffering from feature bloat .
Software with too many unwanted features generally becomes unusable and so people stop using it .
If a lot of people are using it , then at worst it 's getting there , and if a lot of people are using that feature , then it 's not really bloated at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always laugh at comments about feature bloat.Unless the features included in software are unused by the vast majority of that software's users, then it is not feature bloat.
Just because you personally don't need a feature, and that your personal copy would be faster without it doesn't mean it's bloated, it just means it has a feature that you don't need.
Personally I find mail merge to be a completely wasted feature in every office suite I've ever used.
People who send a lot of form letters on the other hand, or who need to address the same letter to lots of people, probably disagree.
Alternatively, a lot of people find javascript debuggers useless, whereas I install extra ones into my browsers.
Some people hate the awesome bar in firefox, I miss it when I'm using another browser.Generally speaking, if software is still successful, excluding rare instances where there is zero competition(including older versions of the same product), it's not actually suffering from feature bloat.
Software with too many unwanted features generally becomes unusable and so people stop using it.
If a lot of people are using it, then at worst it's getting there, and if a lot of people are using that feature, then it's not really bloated at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30733278</id>
	<title>Re:Open cloud vs Facebook, Google, Twitter</title>
	<author>louks</author>
	<datestamp>1263230580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The largest challenge to openness stares us in the face every day, and nobody seems to notice: Much of our data is stored in proprietary servers controlled by private companies, including Facebook, Google, and Twitter.</p></div><p>While I cannot speak for Facebook and Twitter (nor do I speak <i>through</i> them because of my mistrust), but I do know that people at Google have noticed, which is why a team there has developed the Data Liberation Front.</p><p>Please check them out at: <a href="http://dataliberation.org/" title="dataliberation.org" rel="nofollow">http://dataliberation.org/</a> [dataliberation.org]</p><p>To get you started, here is their mission statement:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Users should be able to control the data they store in any of Google's products.  Our team's goal is to make it easier to move data in and out.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The largest challenge to openness stares us in the face every day , and nobody seems to notice : Much of our data is stored in proprietary servers controlled by private companies , including Facebook , Google , and Twitter.While I can not speak for Facebook and Twitter ( nor do I speak through them because of my mistrust ) , but I do know that people at Google have noticed , which is why a team there has developed the Data Liberation Front.Please check them out at : http : //dataliberation.org/ [ dataliberation.org ] To get you started , here is their mission statement : Users should be able to control the data they store in any of Google 's products .
Our team 's goal is to make it easier to move data in and out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The largest challenge to openness stares us in the face every day, and nobody seems to notice: Much of our data is stored in proprietary servers controlled by private companies, including Facebook, Google, and Twitter.While I cannot speak for Facebook and Twitter (nor do I speak through them because of my mistrust), but I do know that people at Google have noticed, which is why a team there has developed the Data Liberation Front.Please check them out at: http://dataliberation.org/ [dataliberation.org]To get you started, here is their mission statement:Users should be able to control the data they store in any of Google's products.
Our team's goal is to make it easier to move data in and out.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723820</id>
	<title>Re:bad writing.</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1263228660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Writing are hards!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Writing are hards !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Writing are hards!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30766362</id>
	<title>Re:Ministry of Truth</title>
	<author>just\_another\_sean</author>
	<datestamp>1263491940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Other then fashionable bashing what does RMS have to do with this?</p><p>1. Mozilla is Open Source, not Free Software.</p><p>2. The term open source grew out of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Cathedral\_and\_the\_Bazaar" title="wikipedia.org">ESR</a> [wikipedia.org] and others (Bruce Perens?) convincing Netscape that<br>they could beat Microsoft by taking Netscape "Open Source". This was one of, if not the,<br>first successful attempts to court business with the idea of open source.</p><p>3. Mozilla isn't even considered Fee Software anymore because of their take on their IP<br>embedded in Firefox. Thus Debian's Iceweasel.</p><p>RMS had very little if anything to do with Netscape morphing into to Mozilla. RMS does<br>Free Software, not Open Source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Other then fashionable bashing what does RMS have to do with this ? 1 .
Mozilla is Open Source , not Free Software.2 .
The term open source grew out of ESR [ wikipedia.org ] and others ( Bruce Perens ?
) convincing Netscape thatthey could beat Microsoft by taking Netscape " Open Source " .
This was one of , if not the,first successful attempts to court business with the idea of open source.3 .
Mozilla is n't even considered Fee Software anymore because of their take on their IPembedded in Firefox .
Thus Debian 's Iceweasel.RMS had very little if anything to do with Netscape morphing into to Mozilla .
RMS doesFree Software , not Open Source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Other then fashionable bashing what does RMS have to do with this?1.
Mozilla is Open Source, not Free Software.2.
The term open source grew out of ESR [wikipedia.org] and others (Bruce Perens?
) convincing Netscape thatthey could beat Microsoft by taking Netscape "Open Source".
This was one of, if not the,first successful attempts to court business with the idea of open source.3.
Mozilla isn't even considered Fee Software anymore because of their take on their IPembedded in Firefox.
Thus Debian's Iceweasel.RMS had very little if anything to do with Netscape morphing into to Mozilla.
RMS doesFree Software, not Open Source.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724280</id>
	<title>Re:Open cloud vs Facebook, Google, Twitter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263231060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Internet was consciously and carefully engineered to put the power in the hands of the end user; data was stored at the end point in open formats (think of POP/IMAP mail and USENET forums, for example).</p></div><p>Okay... do you have examples in which spam is not a rampant problem, and impossible to deal with due to fundamental design decisions?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>What happens when your cloud vendor goes out of business?</p></div><p>Your data goes "Poof!"  <em>That</em> is what they mean by "cloud!"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Internet was consciously and carefully engineered to put the power in the hands of the end user ; data was stored at the end point in open formats ( think of POP/IMAP mail and USENET forums , for example ) .Okay... do you have examples in which spam is not a rampant problem , and impossible to deal with due to fundamental design decisions ? What happens when your cloud vendor goes out of business ? Your data goes " Poof !
" That is what they mean by " cloud !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Internet was consciously and carefully engineered to put the power in the hands of the end user; data was stored at the end point in open formats (think of POP/IMAP mail and USENET forums, for example).Okay... do you have examples in which spam is not a rampant problem, and impossible to deal with due to fundamental design decisions?What happens when your cloud vendor goes out of business?Your data goes "Poof!
"  That is what they mean by "cloud!
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30725502</id>
	<title>FF is not a single product</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263235860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Before there are too many posts stating "it (still) works for me" let me point out that FF is not a single product even if it has portions in common across all platforms. My observation has been that it seems to work pretty well on Windows but still is a slow, buggy memory hog on Linux. (Although I admit that FF3 doesn't seem to crash as much, it still requires too much memory!)</p><p>AC</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Before there are too many posts stating " it ( still ) works for me " let me point out that FF is not a single product even if it has portions in common across all platforms .
My observation has been that it seems to work pretty well on Windows but still is a slow , buggy memory hog on Linux .
( Although I admit that FF3 does n't seem to crash as much , it still requires too much memory !
) AC</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before there are too many posts stating "it (still) works for me" let me point out that FF is not a single product even if it has portions in common across all platforms.
My observation has been that it seems to work pretty well on Windows but still is a slow, buggy memory hog on Linux.
(Although I admit that FF3 doesn't seem to crash as much, it still requires too much memory!
)AC</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30727844</id>
	<title>Re:I have an idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263201420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>with a single million euros they got from google, they could employ 50 full time programmers on 20,000 euros a year, how much development do you think 50 FT devs could do for firefox on all platforms.</p><p>how many millions did mozilla earn last year again? multiply it by 50, thats how many FT paid employees they could afford, if they were busy feathering their nests with things they don't deserve.</p><p>ironically, the only platform where firefox doesnt suck it, is windows, how hilarious, linux, the system that should be the first platform, is the worst browsing experience ever, I'd use chromium with it's faults over firefox on linux, it's utterly ridiculous how that situation has panned out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>with a single million euros they got from google , they could employ 50 full time programmers on 20,000 euros a year , how much development do you think 50 FT devs could do for firefox on all platforms.how many millions did mozilla earn last year again ?
multiply it by 50 , thats how many FT paid employees they could afford , if they were busy feathering their nests with things they do n't deserve.ironically , the only platform where firefox doesnt suck it , is windows , how hilarious , linux , the system that should be the first platform , is the worst browsing experience ever , I 'd use chromium with it 's faults over firefox on linux , it 's utterly ridiculous how that situation has panned out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>with a single million euros they got from google, they could employ 50 full time programmers on 20,000 euros a year, how much development do you think 50 FT devs could do for firefox on all platforms.how many millions did mozilla earn last year again?
multiply it by 50, thats how many FT paid employees they could afford, if they were busy feathering their nests with things they don't deserve.ironically, the only platform where firefox doesnt suck it, is windows, how hilarious, linux, the system that should be the first platform, is the worst browsing experience ever, I'd use chromium with it's faults over firefox on linux, it's utterly ridiculous how that situation has panned out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724520</id>
	<title>Re:Communioncator  = RTFA</title>
	<author>SargentDU</author>
	<datestamp>1263232140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Simple, when you don't understand the summary, then Read The Fine (linked) Article (RTFA) and it is explained!
Commenting when you have not taken time to read, looks bad on you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Simple , when you do n't understand the summary , then Read The Fine ( linked ) Article ( RTFA ) and it is explained !
Commenting when you have not taken time to read , looks bad on you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simple, when you don't understand the summary, then Read The Fine (linked) Article (RTFA) and it is explained!
Commenting when you have not taken time to read, looks bad on you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30732236</id>
	<title>Re:Crunchy Goodness!</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1263222000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; Only programs I've ever had use MORE [RAM]<br>&gt; were Photoshop<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and VMWare<br><br>Apparently you've not used Inkscape.  Holy cow does that thing use a lot of memory.  (It's not too bad otherwise, and I do have enough RAM that it's not a big problem.  But it does use a lot, oh, yes.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Only programs I 've ever had use MORE [ RAM ] &gt; were Photoshop ... and VMWareApparently you 've not used Inkscape .
Holy cow does that thing use a lot of memory .
( It 's not too bad otherwise , and I do have enough RAM that it 's not a big problem .
But it does use a lot , oh , yes .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Only programs I've ever had use MORE [RAM]&gt; were Photoshop ... and VMWareApparently you've not used Inkscape.
Holy cow does that thing use a lot of memory.
(It's not too bad otherwise, and I do have enough RAM that it's not a big problem.
But it does use a lot, oh, yes.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724078</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30725054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30726384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30728376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30726170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30725024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30730924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30725024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30728596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30729544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30725740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30727954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30732236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30766362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30733278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30748666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30725730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30734928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30729340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30725024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30732180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30725320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30729984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30801004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30733788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30725762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30727686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30726214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30725730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30735568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30727844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30725024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30733840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30725024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30728226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30728600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30727606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30725024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30746534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30725806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30725994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30725194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1443246_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1443246.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724030
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724348
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724868
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1443246.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30725740
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1443246.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723910
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1443246.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30727954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30733278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30729544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30725054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30748666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30801004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30725994
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1443246.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30729340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724422
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1443246.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30726914
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1443246.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30766362
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1443246.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30733788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724520
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1443246.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30728376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30726214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724004
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1443246.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723770
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723774
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30727606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723820
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30725194
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1443246.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724598
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1443246.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723998
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30725762
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30727686
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30725024
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30746534
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30728596
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30733840
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30730924
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30732180
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30728226
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30728600
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30726384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724078
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30732236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724382
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30729984
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1443246.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30726754
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1443246.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724110
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1443246.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30723712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30726170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30727844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30725320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30725806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30725730
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30735568
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30734928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1443246.30724118
</commentlist>
</conversation>
